Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization (SAAC) 21

STUDIES IN ANCIENT ART AND CIVILIZATION 21 JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY Kraków 2017 LIST OF REVIEWERS Alexander Ahrens (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin) Nikos Akamatis (International Hellenic University, Thermi) Bettina Bader (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna) Katarzyna Balbuza (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) Dávid Bartus (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest) Mirosław Barwik (University of Warsaw) Ina Berg (The University of Manchester) Marianne Bergeron (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Giorgos Bourogiannis (Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities (Medelhavsmuseet), Stockholm) Stefano Caneva (Université de Liège) Krzysztoł M. Ciałowicz (Jagiellonian University, Krakow) Andrzej Ćwiek (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) Martin Dorka Moreno (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Kata Endreffy (Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest) Norbert Franken (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz) Carmelo Fernandez Ibañez (Archaeological Museum of Palencia) Elisabetta Gagetti (Independent Researcher, Milan) Stan Hendrickx (MAD-Faculty, Genk) Martin Henig (University of Oxford) Piotr Jaworski (University of Warsaw) Zdzisław J. Kapera (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Emeritus) Attilio Mastrocinque (Università di Verona) Agnieszka Mączyńska (Poznań Archaeological Museum) Andrzej Niwiński (University of Warsaw) Seth Pevnick (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire/Tampa Museum of Art) Graham Philip (Durham University) Adrian Stähl (Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts) Joachim Śliwa (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Emeritus) Francesca Tasso (Independent Researcher, Milan) Anna Trofimova (The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg) Roux Valentine (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris) Carina Weiß (Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg) Yuval Yekutieli (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva) Erika Zwierlein-Diehl (Universität Bonn, Emeritus) STUDIES IN ANCIENT ART AND CIVILIZATION 21 Universitas Iagellonica DE ANTIQUORUM ARTIBUS ET CIVILISATIONE STUDIA VARIA Pars XXI Edidit Jaroslav Bodzek Cracoviae MMXVII Jagiellonian University STUDIES IN ANCIENT ART AND CIVILIZATION 21 Edited by Jarosław Bodzek Krakow 2017 EDITORIAL BOARD Jarosław Bodzek (Editor-in-Chief, Jagiellonian University, Krakow) Piotr Bieliński (University of Warsaw) Eliot Braun (W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem) Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz (Jagiellonian University, Krakow) Renée Friedman (British Museum, London) Georgia Kokkorou-Alevras (National and Kapodistrian University, Athens) Janusz A. Ostrowski (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Emeritus) Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka (Jagiellonian University, Krakow) Tomasz Polański (Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce) Joachim Śliwa (Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Emeritus) Michael Vickers (University of Oxford, Emeritus) MANAGING EDITOR Agata Dobosz CO-EDITOR Paweł Gołyźniak LANGUAGE EDITOR Keith Horechka COVER DESIGN Szymon Szweda LAYOUT Marta Korczyńska-Zdąbłarz ON THE COVER Red jasper intaglio presenting Mars or Achilles, 2nd century AD. National Museum in Lisbon, inv. no. Au 1205 (cf. Cravinho, pl. 3, no. 33) © COPYRIGHT BY JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & AUTHORS KRAKOW 2017 Publication financed from statutory funds of the Jagiellonian University Faculty of History KSIĘGARNIA AKADEMICKA ul. św. Anny 6 31-008 Kraków e-mail: [email protected] AVAILABLE FROM: WWW.AKADEMICKA.PL Published in the e-book form plus 200 paper copies The primary version of the journal is the electronic format ISSN: 1899-1548 e-ISSN: 2449-867X Studies in Ancient Art And Civilization are regularly listed at the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s List B, ERIH Plus, Index Copernicus and CEJSH Contents Robert Kuhn Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh. Potential und Problem einer Erneuten Annäherung ..............................................7 Paul Nicholson Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire as a heuristic tool .................................................................................25 Diana Liesegang The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion ................................................................................................53 Maciej Wacławik A few preliminary remarks on the Cypriot sculptures known as temple-boys .....................................................................................67 Agata Kubala A faience aryballos in the collection of The University Museum at Wroclaw ...........................................................................................77 Inga Głuszek The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion during excavations of 2007-2012 ..................................................................89 Kamil Kopij When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? .......119 Alexis Bonnefoy, Michel Feugère Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier ......................................143 Graça Cravinho Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum in Lisbon ............................................................................................173 Jean-Louis Podvin Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos ..............................................247 Hadrien J. Rambach A manuscript description in Kraków of the ‘Trivulzio Museum’ in Milan .............................................................................................261 Mateusz Bogucki, Arkadiusz Dymowski, Grzegorz Śnieżko The common people and material relics of Antiquity. The afterlife of ancient coins in the territory of present-day Poland in the medieval and modern periods ............................................................................275 S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Robert Kuhn Berlin DAS FRÜHDYNASTISCHE GRÄBERFELD VOM GEBEL ES-SILSILEH. POTENTIAL UND PROBLEM EINER ERNEUTEN ANNÄHERUNG Abstract: Between 1897 and 1902 a Predynastic necropolis near Gebel es-Silsileh, Upper Egypt, has been excavated by a French team of archaeologists. The material is now spread over different collections all over Europe and Egypt and awaits a detailed review. Starting with the finds, consisting of pottery, small finds made of bone and stone as well as parts of the human skeletons, stored in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, it is the goal to re-evaluate this necropolis by using both, the available archaeological methods as well as natural sciences such as 14-C, histology, aDNA etc. Keywords: Gebel es-Silsileh; Predynastic; Naqada II; Naqada III; formative Phase; Predynastic Pottery; Slate Palettes; G. Schweinfurth; J. de Morgan; G. Legrain; G. Lampre; D. Fouquet; secondary burial practice; child-burial 1. Einleitung und Übersicht Auf halber Strecke zwischen Assuan und El-Kab liegt auf dem Ostufer des Nil eine frühdynastische Nekropole, die seit ihrer Ausgrabung zu Beginn des 20. Jh. nahezu in Vergessenheit geraten ist. Ihre Entdeckung verdankt sie zwei französischen Ägyptologen die sie während zweier kurzer Kampagnen 1897 und 1902 untersuchten (de Morgan 1897, 42; Legrain 1903, 218-220). Im Februar 1897 entdeckte der französische Archäologe G. Legrain (1865– DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.01 8 R. Kuhn 1917) zusammen mit G. Lampre im Norden des Steinbruches, zwischen dem Standort der Stele Amenhotep‘s IV. und dem Wadi-Arm Sebil Caioudj ein frühägyptisches Gräberfeld. Heute ist weitgehend unklar, wo genau sich die Nekropole befunden hat, ein altes Archivphoto in der Berliner Sammlung zeigt allerdings möglicherweise das Areal kurz nach Abschluss der Grabungen (Taf. 1: 1). Bislang fehlen detaillierte Informationen zu dem Friedhof, der 1897 in einer für uns heute rasant anmutenden Zeit von nur drei Tagen ausgegraben worden ist und lediglich in Form eines kurzen Vorberichtes (Legrain 1903, 219) publiziert vorliegt. Dies mag auch mit der kurz nach Beendigung der französischen Grabungen stattgefundenen starken Beraubung des Areals zusammenhängen (Legrain 1903, 219). Das Fundmaterial aus den Grabungen befindet sich vorwiegend auf die Sammlungen in Berlin (Kuhn und Gresky 2015), Bonn (Regner 1998; Kuhn 2014), St.-Germain-en-Laye (CleyetMerle und Vallet 1982, 68-165; Lorre 2008), Porto (de Araújo 2011, 64-65, Kat.-Nr. 51) sowie Kairo verstreut und erschwert durch die unterschiedliche Erhaltung des Aktenmaterials weiterhin eine ausführliche Annäherung an das Gräberfeld. Allein über die unterschiedlichen alten Inventarnummern und Beschreibungen darf von einer Nekropole von mindestens 63 Gräbern ausgegangen werden (Hendrickx und Van den Brink 2002, 365; Kuhn und Gresky 2015). Da allerdings auch Mehrfachbestattungen dokumentiert sind (Taf. 1: 2), ist zu Recht von einer Anzahl von mehr als 100 hier bestatteten Individuen auszugehen. Wenngleich keine detaillierten Beschreibungen zur Fundlage und Bestattung der einzelnen Individuen vorliegen, ist auf vier durch J. de Morgan publizierte Skizzen zu verweisen, die allesamt Grablegen aus Gebel es-Silsileh zeigen und Befunde aus der ersten Grabungskampagne von 1897 darstellen (Taf. 1: 2). Drei davon zeigen einen hohen Grad an sekundärer Störung, bzw. von fortgeschrittenen Dekompositionsvorgängen, ein weiteres Grab scheint hingegen intakt aufgefunden worden zu sein. Letztere stellt eine Bestattung von drei Individuen in linker Hockerstellung dar und deckt sich mit der Aussage des französischen Anthropologen D. Fouquet, es habe eine beträchtliche Anzahl an Mehrfachbestattungen in dieser Nekropole gegeben (de Morgan 1897; Fouquet 1897, 335). Aufgrund der Dokumentationslage muss zudem offen bleiben, ob es sich um Sonderbestattungen in Form von Sekundärbestattungen handelt, Das Gefäß kam im Zuge des Austausches mit den Assur-Funden nach Portugal und wird hier unter der Inv.-Nr. 41.01.095 geführt. Die Im Katalog (de Araújo 2011, Kat.-Nr. 5) angegebene Zuweisung an die Nekropole von Abusir el-Meleq sowie die Datierung nach Badari ist zu korrigieren. Bei dem Gefäß handelt es sich um ein typisches Zylindergefäß der Stufe Naqada IIIB-C/erste Hälfte 1. Dyn. 1 Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 9 ein Aspekt, der bis heute auch für andere frühägyptische Gräberfelder debattiert wird (Mahytka 2003; Wright 1979; Kuhn 2013; zur Problematik von Sekundärbestattungen allgemein: Orschiedt 1999). Bislang liegen keine weiteren Erkenntnisse zu den hier Bestatteten vor, was höchstwahrscheinlich auch mit der generell schlechten Knochenerhaltung vor Ort zusammenhängen könnte. Nach der Grabung wurden einige wenige Knochen, darunter auch neun Schädel, an D. Fouquet gesandt, dessen Ergebnisse im Band J. de Morgan‘s zur ägyptischen Prähistorie 1897 publiziert wurden (Fouquet 1897, 335). Nach Ausweis des Anthropologen liegen im Skelettmaterial vier Männer und fünf weibliche Individuen vor (Fouquet 1897, 335). Zwar konnte er keine anatomischen Auffälligkeiten und Pathologica nachweisen, doch vermerkt er Bitumenreste in den Schädelhöhlen und den noch intakten Nasenbeinen, was er als Hinweise auf frühe Mumifizierung deutet (Fouquet 1897, 335). Forschungen der letzten Jahrzehnte, wie sie beispielsweise für den sogenannten Arbeiterfriedhof HK 43 in Hierakonpolis vorliegen, liefern zudem eine Bestätigung für die frühen Versuche und Stadien der Mumifizierungstechnik in Oberägypten (Friedman und Maish 1999). 2. Das in Berlin aufbewahrte Fundmaterial Das Fundmaterial kam auf unterschiedlichen Kanälen in die heutigen Sammlungen. Während die in St. Germain-en-Laye befindlichen Objekte zu großen Teilen aus dem Nachlass von J. de Morgan stammen, nennt das Berliner Inventarbuch G. Schweinfurth, der die Objekte dem Museum 1897 schenkte. Wie G. Schweinfurth an die Stücke gelangte, ist bislang noch ungeklärt. Möglicherweise waren es die Geschenke der Ausgräber während einer kurzen Visite der französischen Ausgrabungen. Unter Umständen hat G. Schweinfurth auch während der Grabungen assistiert, denn im Berliner Inventarbuch findet sich sowohl der Eintrag „von Lampre und Legrain in Gebel Silsileh gefunden2“ als auch „von Schweinfurth auf der Südseite der Nekropole von Gebel Silsileh gefunden3“. Insgesamt handelt es sich bei dem Berliner Material um 15 Tongefäße unterschiedlichster Form und Zeitstellung, sechs Schminkpaletten und zwei Cf. ÄM 13957; 13958; 13960; 13975; 13976. Cf. ÄM 13952. Für ein Objekt, ÄM 13954 wird auch „1897 von de Morgan“ angegeben. Entweder handelt es sich tatsächlich um eine Überweisung J. de Morgans, der einen großen Teil der französischen Funde in seiner Privatsammlung besaß, oder es muss mit einer Verschreibung bei der Inventarisierung gerechnet werden. Zeitgleich mit dem Konvolut vom Gebel es-Silsileh wurden nämlich Funde aus der Grabung von Beit Allam inventarisiert, die tatsächlich von de Morgan an Berlin übergeben worden waren. 2 3 10 R. Kuhn beinerne Schmuckobjekte. Der Erhaltungszustand der Stücke war teilweise bereits bei der Ankunft in Berlin äußerst fragmentarisch. Letzteres hat dazu geführt, dass anscheinend bei dem nur noch in einigen Splittern erhaltenen Elfenbeinarmreif auch A. Scharff bei der Vorlage des Bestandskataloges der Sammlung letztlich auf eine zeichnerische und photographische Abbildung verzichtet hat. Für alle restlichen Objekte, die aus Gebel es-Silsileh nach Berlin kamen, sind alte Photographien in den Archiven bzw. über die Publikation Scharffs erhalten. Dies ist in einigen Fällen ein wahrer Glücksfall, da leider ein Großteil der Objekte heute zu den Kriegsverlusten gezählt werden muss. Von den ehemals 15 Tongefäßen sind nur noch sieben Gefäße4 erhalten, bei den Schminkpaletten sind es lediglich zwei, zwei beinerne Ringfragmente (ÄM 13941) müssen ebenfalls als vollends verloren gelten. Von diesen insgesamt 23 Objekten aus der Nekropole lassen sich noch zehn Stücke dem wahrscheinlichen ehemaligen Grabkontext zuweisen5 (Taf. 2). 2.1. Keramik Das kleine Konvolut an Tongefäßen stellt ein sehr variantenreiches und interessantes Ensemble dar, welches neben ellipsoiden Vorratsgefäßen, Zylinder- und Wellenhenkelgefäßen auch Näpfe und Deckelchen aufweist. Neben der rotpolierten Flasche (ÄM 13977) sind auch die Näpfe und Schälchen vorwiegend klassische Vertreter von Grabkeramik der Stufe Naqada IIC/D. Zeitlich etwas jünger dürften hingegen die beiden ellipsoiden Vorratsgefäße aus Mergelton sein (ÄM 13981, ÄM 13976), die in die Stufe Naqada IIIB/C datieren. Eines der beiden Berliner Stücke (ÄM 13981) weist im oberen Bodenbereich der Außenwandung zudem eine zweiteilige Ritzmarke, bestehend aus zwei parallelen, schräg gestellten Einritzungen auf. Diese geometrischen Zeichen sind recht häufig anzutreffen und können wohl in Zusammenhang mit einer Maßangabe bzw. einer Verortung gesehen werden (Zusammenfassend: Van den Brink 1992, 267–277; Bréand 2008, 1015-1041; Mawdsley 2011, 1043-1071). Ein weiteres achtes gelangte bereits 1926 an das Museum in Portugal (s.u.), über den heutigen Verbleib und den Zustand des Gefäßes kann bis dato keine sichere Auskunft gegeben werden. 5 Auf einigen der Objekte wurde mit roter Farbe oder Tinte eine Nummer vermerkt, die nicht mit den Akzessions- und Vorgangsnummern im Inventarbuch übereinstimmen. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass es sich hierbei um die alte Grabnummerierung handelt: ÄM 13941 („Tombe Ω“), ÄM 13935/1 (Grab 13 oder 19); ÄM 13958 (Grab 24); ÄM 13960/4 (Grab 28); ÄM 13977 (Grab 47); ÄM 13943, ÄM 13960/3, ÄM 13981 (Grab 51); ÄM 13940 (Grab 54); ÄM 13960/1 (Grab 63). 4 Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 11 Eine Besonderheit stellen die drei bemalten Gefäßfragmente dar (ÄM 13954; ÄM 13952/1–2). Ein recht seltenes Exemplar ist die Steingefäßimitation (Taf. 3: 1-2) (ÄM 13954). Dabei wird nicht nur in der kugeligen Form mit den herausgearbeiteten Schnurösenhenkeln die Form eines Steingefäßes, sondern durch die Bemalung mittels roter Tupfen das Gefäß auch farblich an das Gepräge eines Steingefäßes angeglichen. Eine weitere Steingefäßimitation aus dem Gräberfeld, ein tonnenförmiges Schnurösengefäß, befindet sich in St. Germain-en-Laye (Inv.-Nr. 77.719j, cf. Cleyet-Merle et al., 139). Diese beiden Gefäße sind auch deswegen so interessant und wichtig, da bislang aus der Nekropole keine Steingefäße bekannt geworden sind, obwohl der Friedhof mitten in einem Steinabbaugebiet liegt. Äußerst ungewöhnlich sind hingegen zwei stark fragmentierte Scherben (ÄM 13952/1–2), die neben der Tonart vor allem auch eine erklärungsbedürftige Orientierung der bemalten Szene aufweisen (Taf. 3: 3-4). Ob es sich hierbei aber um nachträgliche Fälschungen handelt, die von den Ausgräbern vor Ort angekauft worden sind, oder um lokale Besonderheiten, muss bislang aufgrund der noch nicht erfolgen TL-Datierung offen bleiben (Kuhn 2014, 180-184). Das Dekor bestehend aus Straußen/Flamingos ist zumindest auch auf weiteren Gefäßfragmenten aus dem Gräberfeld nachgewiesen und befinden sich in St. Germain-enLaye (Inv.-Nr. 77.719f) und im Museum der Universität Bonn (I. N. 70; Kuhn 2014, 180–184). Zudem sind aus Gebel es-Silsileh weitere bemalte Gefäße belegt, die bis heute singuläre Szenen aufweisen. Eines wurde mutmaßlich während der Grabungskampagne 1897 entdeckt (Kairo, CG 18805, cf. Legrain 1903, fig. 5-6; Capart 1905, fig. 93; Graff 2009, Kat.-Nr. 191). Es handelt sich um ein bauchiges D-Waren-Gefäß mit triangulären Ösenhenkeln direkt über der Schulter. Das Dekor ist in rotbrauner Farbe aufgemalt und zeigt im oberen Bereich eine Reihe von mit der Spitze nach oben ausgerichteten Dreiecken, die wohl eine Bergwelt simulieren. Darunter befinden sich Gazellen, teils im Kampf miteinander, diverse Wassertiere wie Vögel, Krokodile und Fische, sowie zwei Bootsdarstellungen mit Kabine und „Standarte“. Zwischen den aufgezählten Elementen sind zudem Rauten dargestellt, die in der oberen Hälfte rot ausgemalt sind, im unteren Feld lediglich eine Umrandung aufweisen. Letztere Elemente stehen im Kanon der frühägyptischen Gefäßdekoration ohne Parallelen und harren einer Erklärung. Ob es sich um eine nachträgliche Bemalung auf einem alten Gefäß handelt, wie dies zuweilen auch für frühägyptische Gefäße nachgewiesen werden konnte (z.B. Fiechter 2009, 87 zum Gefäß 12 R. Kuhn Inv.-Nr. 237724, Muzeum Narodowe, Warschau), ließe sich allein durch eine Thermolumineszenz-Datierung überprüfen. 2.2. Gefäßinhalte – Wer oder was waren hier bestattet? In sieben der Berliner Gefäße aus Gebel es-Silsileh konnten bei der Inventarisierung noch Gefäßinhaltsreste nachgewiesen werden6, von denen heute allerdings nur noch drei Exemplare erhalten sind. Zusätzlich zu den von A. Scharff erwähnten Gefäßinhaltsresten ließen sich im oberen Gefäßdrittel der rotpolierten Flasche (ÄM 13977) geringe Reste einer Flüssigkeit nachweisen, des Weiteren sind möglicherweise verkrustete Reste im Bodenbereich des Gefäßes ÄM 13976 zu belegen, die aber bislang allesamt noch nicht näher untersucht werden konnten. Umso bedauerlicher ist es, dass wir heute nur noch die „menschlichen Haare“ und einige stark fragmentierte Knochen aus der Schale ÄM 13935/1 und dem Napf ÄM 13936 vorliegen haben. Die anthropologische Untersuchung durch J. Gresky zeigt, dass es sich mitnichten, wie dies noch von A. Scharff angenommen worden war, um verbrannte und fragmentierte Tierknochen handelt (Kuhn und Gresky 2015; Gresky 2016). Vielmehr gehören die vorliegenden Knochenfragmente, die auf zwei Schalen aufgeteilt sind, allesamt zu menschlichen Langknochen zweier kindlicher Individuen im Alter zwischen 5–9 Jahren. Der hohe Fragmentierungsgrad ist nicht auf einen Brand, sondern wohl den hohen Salzgehalt des Bodens, sowie auf einen pathologischen Befund zurückzuführen. Dies lässt freilich unterschiedliche Deutungsmöglichkeiten zu. Möglicherweise handelt es sich bei den Gefäßen um Beigaben eines Grabes. Ob die Kinderbestattung die Haupt- oder eine Sekundärbestattung im potenziellen Grab 2 gewesen ist, lässt sich nach derzeitigem Kenntnisstand nicht sicher feststellen. Bei den bislang aus Oberägypten bekannten Gefäßbestattungen handelt es sich allerdings vorwiegend um Bestattungen in großen Vorratsgefäßen, die sehr jung verstorbenen Individuen vorbehalten waren (zu Adaïma: Midant-Reynes und Crubézy 2002; Zillhardt 2009, 48–52). Während die distalen Femurfragmente aus der Schale 13936 keine weiteren Pathologica aufwiesen, konnten an den Fragmenten aus dem Napf 13935 durchaus pathologische Veränderungen der Knochenstruktur an den Langknochen entdeckt werden. Letztere werden von J. Gresky mit aller Vorsicht als mögliche Hinweise auf eine Tumorerkrankung und chronische *ÄM 13935/1; ÄM 13935/2; ÄM 13975; ÄM 13958; ÄM 13976; *ÄM 13936; *ÄM 13938. Mit * gekennzeichnete sind noch erhalten. 6 Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 13 Herz-Kreislauf-Lungenerkrankung (Morbus Pierre-Marie-Bamberger) gewertet (Gresky 2015; Gresky 2016). Zwei mittlerweile erfolgte Radiokarbondatierungen ergaben leider aufgrund des nicht mehr erhaltenen Kollagens im Knochen kein Ergebnis. Die aDNA Untersuchungen scheiterte gleichsam an der schlechten Knochenerhaltung. In beiden Fällen konnten an den Knochen keine Brandspuren nachgewiesen werden, was eine Brandbestattung in den Näpfen ausschließt. Allein für das Wellenhenkelgefäß (ÄM 13975) ist im Inventarbuch der Vermerk „verbrannte Knochen“ belegt, was aber aufgrund des kriegsbedingten Verlustes des gesamten Gefäßes nicht mehr nachgeprüft werden kann. Ob es sich auch hierbei um Menschenknochen (zu frühägyptischen Brandbestattungen: Dougherty 2010, 6–7) oder eher um Reste einer Nahrungsbeigabe (vgl. Flores 2003), also Tierknochen handelt, ist nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Aufgrund der Forschungsgeschichte kann nicht mehr mit Sicherheit bestimmt werden, ob die hier vorgestellten Schalen zu einer oberägyptischen Sonderbestattung, etwa eine Sekundärbestattung (Kuhn 2013, 127–140) zu zählen sind, oder es sich vielmehr um einen Umlagerungsprozess innerhalb des Museums und Depots in der Vergangenheit handelt. 2.3. Die Schminkpaletten Die Schminkpaletten aus dem Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh sind nahezu allesamt nur noch fragmentiert erhalten und lassen sich aufgrund ihrer Form recht gut mit dem bekannten Inventar dieser Objektkategorie vergleichen. In Berlin befinden sich noch sechs Palettenfragmente, wovon vier fischförmig gestaltet sind (ÄM 13940, 13960/1; ÄM 13960/4; ÄM 13960/5) (vgl. Taf. 2). Bemerkenswert an diesen Stücken ist vor allem, dass sich trotz des fragmentierten Zustandes noch eine, bereits in der Antike stattgefunden habende Umarbeitung nachweisen lässt. Das Fragment ÄM 13960/5, das keinem Grab mehr zugewiesen werden kann, zeigt beispielsweise stark überglättete Ausbruchkanten an den Seiten auf. Erhalten ist nur noch das hintere Ende, dass augenscheinlich nach einem Ausbruch zu einem Fischschwanz umgearbeitet worden ist. Aufgrund des tiefen Einschnittes am oberen Ende, darf zumindest vermutet werden, dass es sich hierbei dereinst um eine schildförmige Palette gehandelt hat, die in zwei antithetisch ausgerichteten Vogelköpfen endete. Wenngleich die Schminkpaletten zu den Leitformen der frühen oberägyptischen Kulturen gehören, lässt sich anhand dieser Objekte kaum eine Feindatierung vornehmen. Zwar werden die zoomorphen – darunter auch die fischförmigen Paletten – zumeist mit der Stufe Naqada 14 R. Kuhn II verbunden (Ciałowicz 1991; Regner 1998), doch zeigt die weitgehend alte Fragmentierung sowie Überarbeitung der einzelnen Objekte, dass sie möglicherweise weitaus länger in Umlauf waren. Der Umgang mit den wohl durchaus als besonders eingestuften Rohstoffen wie Grauwacke/ Siltstein wirft einen interessanten Blick auf die Fertigung von Kultobjekten wie etwa Schminkpaletten, die trotz eines Bruches weiter verwendet und umgestaltet worden sind. Fraglich muss allerdings auch weiterhin bleiben, wann die Objekte umgearbeitet worden sind. 2.4. Weitere Kleinfunde Sowohl in Berlin als auch in St. Germain-en-Laye und Kairo lassen sich neben tönernen Gefäßen und Schminkpaletten einige wenige Kleinfunde wie Ketten und Armreifen aus unterschiedlichen Materialien nachweisen. Es handelt sich hierbei vorwiegend um kugelige Knochen- und Tonperlen, die kaum weitere chronologische Anhaltspunkte liefern. Zudem ist die genaue Lage im Grab nicht mehr zu rekonstruieren, so dass auch die Interpretation als Hals-, Arm- oder Fußschmuck nicht mehr abgesichert werden kann. In Berlin lässt sich leider nur noch eine Kette bestehend aus kugeligen gebrannten Tonperlen nachweisen (ÄM 13970). Die beiden elfenbeinernen Ringe (ÄM 13941) sind sehr wahrscheinlich als Armschmuck zu deuten aber nicht mehr vorhanden. Ein weiteres Objekt aus Elfenbein, ein sogenanntes ‚tag’ oder Zahnamulett, ist leider gleichfalls als Kriegsverlust in der Sammlung verzeichnet (ÄM 13943). Wie im Falle der anderen Schmuckstücke, ist auch eine genaue Verortung des Zahnamulettes in einem Grab nicht mehr möglich. Allein die Vergleichsfunde, die vornehmlich im Bereich der Arme in Gräbern der Stufe Naqada IC–IIC/D deponiert vorkommen, mögen einen Anhaltspunkt für die ursprüngliche Deponierung liefern. Eine genaue Datierung ist aufgrund der beschriebenen Widrigkeiten allein über die Vergleichsfunde nach Stufe Naqada IC–IIB möglich (Hendrickx und Eyckerman 2011, 497–570, Typ B. 3.b). Völlig singulär ist zudem ein heute in Kairo aufbewahrtes Fragment eines kupfernen Beschlags aus dem Gräberfeld, der gleichfalls keinem Grab zugewiesen werden kann (CG 14531). Der ca. 1 mm dünne und korrodierte Kupferbeschlag war um einen hölzernen Stab geschlagen, der wiederum eine Gabelung aufweist (vgl. de Morgan 1897, 141 und 268; Quibell 1904, 278 ad CG 14531). Die Funktion dieses Stückes ist bislang unklar, doch ist auf ganz ähnlich geformte Objekte zu verweisen, wie sie sich im Gräberfeld von Abusir el-Meleq befanden (Kuhn und Hertel 2017). Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 15 3. Rekonstruktion und Datierung der Gräber Wenngleich die Vielzahl der aus Gebel es-Silsileh bekannten Paletten rein typologisch vorwiegend an das Ende der Stufe Naqada II datieren, lässt sich dennoch aufgrund der Überarbeitung dieser Stücke keine klare Datierung für die Einzelobjekte geben. Über die einzelnen Funktionen und die Lage im Grab können sowohl für die Tongefäße, die Schminkpaletten und weiteren Kleinfunde nur noch Mutmaßungen angestellt werden. Aufgrund der publizierten Skizzen zeigt sich aber auch für das Gräberfeld von Gebel es-Silsileh eine durchaus bekannte und zu erwartende Aufstellung. Zumeist waren es ovale und rechteckige, nicht allzu tief in den Boden eingetiefte Grabgruben. In denen wurde um den wohl vorwiegend linksseitig bestatteten Hocker das entsprechende Grabinventar, bestehend aus Keramik und wenigen Kleinfunden deponiert. In mindestens einem Fall, einer Mehrfachbestattung von drei Personen, hat zumindest ein Individuum mit dem Kopf auf einer Schminkpalette gelegen (de Morgan 1927, 112, fig. 134). Diese Lage ist vor allem in Gräberfeldern der oberägyptischen Naqada-Kultur gut belegt (Regner 1998, 28-34) und darf wohl im Zusammenhang mit der intendierten Nutzung dieser Objekte gesehen werden. Architektonisch elaboriertere Grubengräber der Naqada III-Zeit weisen hingegen teilweise eine Kompartimentierung durch Einbauten auf. Beide Formen scheinen nach Auskunft der überlieferten Grabskizzen in Gebel es-Silsileh nachgewiesen zu sein. Zu den einzelnen Bestattungsformen kann derweil auch weiterhin nur gemutmaßt werden. Die erhaltenen Berichte und Archivalien belegen in jedem Falle sowohl Einfach- als auch Mehrfachbestattungen. Inwieweit dabei auch Sonder- und Sekundärbestattungen eine Rolle gespielt haben, lässt sich jedoch aufgrund der schlechten Nachweislage kaum mit Sicherheit bestimmen. Ein möglicher Hinweis auf letztgenannte Praxis könnte allerdings der oben genannte Fall einer Teilbestattung eines an einer Krankheit verstorbenen Kindes sein, dessen Knochen in kleinen Tonschälchen niedergelegt worden sein könnten. Wenngleich mit dem hier vorgestellten Berliner Material kein komplettes Grabensemble rekonstruiert werden kann, lässt sich doch zumindest eine Vergesellschaftung von drei unterschiedlichen Beigaben im Grab Nr. 51 wahrscheinlich machen. Diese Zusammenstellung zeigt interessanterweise zudem, dass sich auch in den Gräbern aus Gebel es-Silsileh teils ältere Objekte, in unserem Falle das Palettenfragment und ein Elfenbein-‘tag‘, befunden haben. 16 R. Kuhn 4. Zusammenfassung und Ausblick Unlängst hat A. Lohwasser (2017) in einem kurzen Essay wichtige Möglichkeiten und Chancen für die wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung von Altgrabungen und Archivmaterial herausgearbeitet. Schwierig ist dabei allerdings, dass in vielen Fällen, wie auch im vorliegenden, die generelle Dokumentationslage von Beginn an sehr schlecht ist und somit auch unter Verwendung aller (bislang gesichteten) verfügbaren Materialien auch auf lange Sicht nur eine Annäherung an den Befund möglich ist. Darüber hinaus verspricht vor allem die Anwendung von naturwissenschaftlichen Analyseverfahren weitere wichtige Informationen den rein archäologisch zu erhebenden Daten zur Seite zu stellen. Allerdings ist auch deren Aussagewert teilweise aufgrund der Lagerung bzw. generell schlechten Erhaltung manchmal stark begrenzt, wie dies auch im vorliegenden Fall festgestellt werden musste. Das hier vorgestellte Material entstammt einem Friedhof, dessen konkrete Ausmaße und selbst geografische Lage bislang nur unzureichend geklärt sind. Dabei ist allerdings zu hoffen, dass zumindest die einstige Lage durch die aktuellen Grabungen durch das Team um M. Nilsson möglich sein wird. Bis dahin bleibt uns allein der in den Museen dokumentierte und spärliche Befund, wie er hier kurz vorgestellt wurde. Das bislang bekannte Material lässt dabei zumindest von der relativchronologischen Einteilung des Gräberfeldes in die Stufen Naqada IIC–IIIC1 ausgehen. Die in den publizierten Skizzen vorgelegte Keramik lässt sogar auf einen etwas früheren Belegungszeitraum des Friedhofes schließen. Letztlich würde dies allerdings bedeuten, dass wir mit einer recht langen Belegungszeit über nahezu die gesamte formative Phase bis in die Mitte der 1. Dynastie zu rechnen haben. Dies lässt die Existenz einer größeren Siedlung im näheren Umfeld vermuten, die ebenfalls über lange Zeit bewohnt worden ist. Gleichzeitig lässt dieser Umstand mutmaßen, dass es sich bei diesen „mindestens 63“ Gräbern nur um einen kleinen Ausschnitt, bzw. einen Teilfriedhof gehandelt haben kann. Im Anschluss an die Beschäftigung mit dem in Berlin befindlichen Material soll nun auch das Material der anderen Sammlungen näher in den Blick genommen werden, um so in Zukunft ein genaueres und differenziertes Bild dieser hochspannenden Nekropole zeichnen zu können. Unter den geplanten Arbeiten ist auch an die Weiterführung naturwissenschaftlicher Analysen der Gefäßinhaltsreste sowie am noch vorhandenen Knochenmaterial zu denken. Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 17 Dank Für die abermalige Vorstellung des Konvolutes sei den Direktoren und Kuratoren der jeweiligen Museen herzlich gedankt: Prof. Dr. F. Seyfried (Berlin), Prof. Dr. L. D. Morenz (Bonn); Dr. C. Lorre (St. Germain-en-Laye). Frau Dr. J. Gresky vom DAI Berlin war so freundlich die anthropologische Bestimmung und Untersuchung des Knochenmaterials vorzunehmen sowie für die 14-C-Beprobung vorzubereiten. Die Proben wurden am CEZ in Mannheim untersucht, hierfür sei Herrn Dr. R. Friedrich herzlich gedankt. Für die unermüdliche Suche im Fotoarchiv nach immer wieder passenden Aufnahmen aus dem riesigen Fundus sei zudem Frau Dr. C.-B. Arnst mein herzlicher Dank ausgesprochen. 18 R. Kuhn Literatur de Araújo L. M. 2011. A Coleção Egípcia do Museu de História Natural da Universidade do Porto. Porto. Baduel N. 2008. Tegumentary Paint and cosmetic palettes in Predynastic Egypt. Impact of those artefacts on the Birth of the Monarchy. In B. Midant Reynes und Y. Tristant (Hrsg.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, Toulouse (France), 5th – 8th September 2005, 1057-1090. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven. Bréand G. 2011. The corpus of pre-firing potmarks from Adaïma (Upper Egypt). In R. F. Friedman und P. N. Fiske (Hrsg.), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008, 1015–1041. (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 205). Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA. van den Brink E. C. M. 1992. Corpus and numerical evaluation of the ‘Thinite’ potmarks. In R. F. Friedman und B. Adams (Hrsg.), The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 265–296. (Egyptian Studies Association 2). Oxford. Capart J. 1905. Primitive Art in Egypt. London. Ciałowicz K. M. 1991. Les palettes Égyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans décoration. Étude de l’art prédynastique. Kraków. Cleyet-Merle J.-J. und Vallet F. 1982. Égypte. In F. Beck, J.-J. CleyetMerle, A. Duval, J.-P. Mohen und F. Vallet (Hrsg.), Archéologie comparée. Catalogue sommaire des collections du musée de SaintGermain-en-Laye 1, 68–165. Paris. Dougherty S. P. 2010. Death in fragments: Piecing together the skeletons of HK6. Nekhen News 22, 6–7. Fiechter J.-J. 2009. Egyptian Fakes. Masterpieces That Duped the Art World and the Experts Who Uncovered Them. Paris. Finneiser K. 2010. Georg Schweinfurth – Pionier der Textilarchäologie und Afrikaforscher. Berlin. Finneiser K. 2013. Auslagerungen des Ägyptischen Museums in Sophienhof. Der Zweite Weltkrieg und die Folgen. In J. Grabowsky und P. Winter (Hrsg.), Zwischen Politik und Kunst. Die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, 303–316. (Schriften zur Geschichte der Berliner Museen 2). Köln, Weimar, Wien. Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 19 Fouquet D. 1897. Appendice. Recherches sur les crânes de l’epoque de la pierre taillée en Égypte. In J. de Morgan, Recherches, 269–380. Friedman R. F. und Maish A. 1999. Pondering paddy. Unwrapping the mysteries of HK43. Nekhen News 11, 6–7. Germer R. 2017. Mumien, Sphingen und Uschebti. Altägyptische Spurensuche im deutschen Ostseeraum. (Ta-Mehu. Ägyptologie in Norddeutschland 1). Rahden, Westf. Graff G. 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I – Nagada II. Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. (Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 6). Leuven. Gresky J. 2016. Das Kind in der Schale. Ein Menschenleben im Spiegel der Prähistorischen Anthropologie. Archäologie Weltweit 2, 64–67. Hendrickx S. 1989. De Grafvelden der Naqada-Cultuur in Zuid-Egypte, Met bijzondere Aandacht voor het Naqada III Grafveld te Elkab. Interne Chronologie en sociale Differentiatie. Leuven. Hendrickx S. 2000. Autruches et flamants – les oiseaux représentés sur la céramique prédynastique de la catégorie Decorated. Cahiers Caribéens d’Egyptologie 1, 21–52. Hendrickx S. und E. C. M. van den Brink (2002). Inventory of predynastic and Early Dynastic cemetery and settlement sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley. In E. C. M. Van den Brink und T. E. Levy (Hrsg.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE, 365. London, New York. Hendrickx S. und Eyckerman M. (2011). Tusks and tags: Between the hippopotamus and the Naqada plant. In R. F. Friedman und P. N. Fiske (Hrsg.), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008, 497–570. (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 205). Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA. Kuhn R. 2013. Zu einigen Bestattungsformen im Ägypten der formativen Phase: Sekundärbestattungen und Mehrfachbestattungen. In G. Neunert, K. Gabler und A. Verbovsek (Hrsg.), Nekropolen: Grab – Bild – Ritual. Beiträge des zweiten Münchener Arbeitskreises Junge Ägyptologie (MAJA 2), 127–140. (Göttinger Orientforschungen Ägypten 54). Wiesbaden. Kuhn R. 2014. Vier frühägyptische Scherben vom Gebel es-Silsileh – Ein lokales Phänomen? In M. Fitzenreiter, Original und Fälschung im Ägyptischen Museum der Universität Bonn, 180–184. Berlin. 20 R. Kuhn Kuhn R. und Gresky J. 2015. Schweinfurths Schenkungen formativzeitlicher Stücke aus Gebel es-Silsileh – Versuch einer Annäherung. In K. Finneiser und J. Helmbold-Doyé (Hrsg.), Der andere Blick. Forscherlust und Wissensdrang. Museumsgabe zum 80. Geburtstag von Karl-Heinz Priese, 169–215. Berlin. Kuhn R. und Hertel I. 2017. Von hölzernen Grabstatuen, frühen Bleibronzen und sogenannten Gräbern. Eine neue Sicht auf den Befund 1052 der Nekropole von Abusir el-Meleq. In F. Feder, G. Sperveslage und F. Steinborn (Hrsg.), Ägypten begreifen. Erika Endesfelder in memoriam, 223–236. (IBAES 19). London. Legrain G. 1903. VI. La nécropole archaïque du Gebel Silsileh. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 4, 218–220. Lorre C. 2008. La collection préhistorique égyptienne du musée d’Archéologie nationale, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France. In B. Midant-Reynes und Y. Tristant (Hrsg.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, Toulouse (France), 5th – 8th September 2005, 1231–1236. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven, Paris, Dudley. Lohwasser A. 2017. Altgrabungen – Probleme und Potentiale. In F. Feder, G. Sperveslage und F. Steinborn (Hrsg.), Ägypten begreifen. Erika Endesfelder in memoriam, 237–241. (IBAES 19). London. Mahytka R. 2003. Bestattungen im Umfeld königlicher Grabanlagen der Ersten Dynastie, unveröffentlicht. Magistarbeit, Göttingen. Mawdsley L. 2011. The corpus of potmarks from Tarkhan. In R. F. Friedman und P. N. Fiske (Hrsg.), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008, 1043–1071. (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 205). Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA. Midant-Reynes B., Janin T. und Crubézy E. 2002. Adaïma 2. La nécropole prédynastique, Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 47. Le Caire. de Morgan J. 1897. Recherches sur les origines de l’Egypte. Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Négadah. Paris. de Morgan J. 1926. La préhistoire orientale II. L’Egypte et l’Afrique du Nord, Ouvrage posthume publié par Louis Germain. Paris. Müller V. 2000. 3.1. Keramik. In G. Dreyer, A. von den Driesch, E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, V. Müller und Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... 21 J. Peters (Hrsg.), Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof 11./12. Vorbericht. MDIK 56, 101–109. Orschiedt J. 1999. Manipulationen an menschlichen Skelettresten. Taphonomische Prozesse, Sekundärbestattungen oder Kannibalismus? (Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 13). Tübingen. Regner C. 1996. Schminkpaletten. (Bonner Sammlung der Aegyptiaca 2). Wiesbaden. Regner C. 1998. Keramik. (Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca 3). Wiesbaden. Scharff A. 1927. Grundzüge der ägyptischen Vorgeschichte. (Das Morgenland 12). Leipzig. Scharff A. 1929. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens. Zweiter Teil: Bestattung, Kunst, Amulette und Schmuck, Geräte zur Körperpflege, Spiel- und Schreibgeräte, Schnitzereien aus Holz und Elfenbein, Verschiedenes. Berlin. Scharff A. 1931. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens, Erster Teil, Werkzeuge, Waffen, Gefäße. Berlin. Wright G. R. H. 1979. The Egyptian Sparagmos. MDIK 35, 345–358. Zillhardt R. 2009. Kinderbestattungen und die soziale Stellung des Kindes im alten Ägypten – Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Ostfriedhofes von Deir el-Medine. (Göttinger Miszellen Beihefte 6). Göttingen. Robert Kuhn c/o Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin [email protected] TAFEL 1 R. Kuhn Taf. 1: 1 – Blick auf die Steinbrüche vom Gebel es-Silsileh. Im Vordergrund befinden sich einige Kuhlen, die auf Grabungstätigkeit verweisen. Ob es sich allerdings um den betreffenden frühzeitlichen Friedhof handelt, ist ungewiss. © Fotoarchiv Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin Taf. 1: 2 – Mehrpersonenbestattung – wohl eine Sekundärbestattung – im Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh nach einer Skizze von J. de Morgan, Recherches sur les origines de l’Egypte. Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Négadah. Paris, fig. 465 Das Frühdynastische Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh... TAFEL 2 Taf. 2 – Zusammenstellung einiger Funde nach Gräbern. Die Zuweisung erfolgte anhand einiger noch auf den Objekten stehender, in roter Farbe ausgeführter, Nummern. Zeichnungen: R. Kuhn; Fotos © Archiv Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin PLATE 3 R. Kuhn Taf. 3: 1 – Steingefäßimitation aus dem Gräberfeld vom Gebel es-Silsileh, ÄM 13954. Zeichnung: R. Kuhn; Fotografie nach A. Scharff, Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens, Erster Teil, Werkzeuge, Waffen, Gefäße, Berlin 1931, Taf. 15.361) Taf. 3: 2 – Bemalter Scherben eines großen Vorratsgefäßes (ÄM 13952/1). Die Ausrichtung zeigt gleichsam die des Scherben im Gefäßes. Foto: R. Kuhn S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Paul Nicholson Cardiff, U.K. POTTERY PRODUCTION IN EGYPT: THE CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE AS A HEURISTIC TOOL Abstract: The main steps in the production of pottery are well known and are often similar across much of the world. However, the loci of production where such steps took place, namely the workshops/workspaces, have traditionally attracted less attention from Egyptologists than have the major religious and funerary monuments. In the past three decades or so, however, there has been an increased emphasis on settlement archaeology and ‘daily life’ and this shift has increased the importance of understanding production loci. This paper attempts to use the concept of the chaîne opératoire in association with spatial information in the way which Monteix (2016) has done in his study of Pompeian bakeries in an attempt to better understand the layout of workshops and to identify potential gaps in the archaeological record. Keywords: Egypt, Pottery, chaîne opératoire, technology, archaeological theory Introduction Whilst the main steps in the production of pottery are well known and are broadly similar the world over (see for example Hodges 1964/1981, 1941; Rice 1987) the loci of production where such steps took place, namely the workshops, have until recently attracted less attention from Egyptologists than have the major religious and funerary monuments. Whilst such a situation is entirely understandable – pottery workshops were unlikely DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.02 26 P. Nicholson to attract the attention of early scholars and were unlikely to illuminate the developing chronology of the country – the increasing emphasis of the last thirty or so years on settlement archaeology and ‘daily life’ has increased their importance. In order to be able to understand the layout of workshops more fully and to identify potential gaps in the archaeological record, and therefore in our knowledge, it may be worthwhile to consider using a chaîne opératoire approach and relate it directly to the workshops themselves. The Chaîne Opératoire The concept of the chaîne opératoire (‘operational sequence’) comes from the work of André Leroi-Gourhan (1911-1986) (1943, 1945, 1964, 1965, 1993) himself a student of Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) and is founded in the latter’s concept of techniques as “‘traditional efficient acts’ a way of being and doing” (Schlanger 2005, 27, for a recent review see Monteix forthcoming). The adoption of the Mauss’s ideas by Anglophone archaeologists probably owed much to the fact that a concept of stages of production had been both implicitly and explicitly used by them for some years. Gordon Childe (1892-1957) in his Man Makes Himself (1956) had taken the view that in explaining settlement and activity one needed to look for the necessities of life – water source, productive land etc., taking a staged approach and this idea of steps and stages finds its way implicitly into Singer et al.’s A History of Technology (1954). Though used in archaeology, chaîne opératoire has not been widely used by Egyptologists, although Shaw (2012, 64) has recently introduced the concept to a general Egyptological audience and Bloxam (2015) has used it in the examination of Egyptian quarrying. One of the shortcomings of the chaîne opératoire concept as it has frequently been used is that it has often done little more than list the steps in a production sequence. Whilst this is a valuable observation to make those steps are often well known, as for example in pottery production, and the concept is capable of greater utility as Monteix (2016) has demonstrated. The chaîne opératoire as a tool for understanding production space The chaîne opératoire when more fully applied looks beyond simple steps in production and at how the techniques involved in the chaîne Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 27 functioned and were structured (Schlanger 2005, 27). Such structuring of tasks may be reflected archaeologically by their physical location on the ground. This has been elegantly demonstrated by Monteix (2016) in his case study of Pompeian bakeries.1 A similar approach has been taken by Keller and Keller (1996) in looking at blacksmithing and, although they do not use the term chaîne the ideas of process and space are closely linked. The difficulty in applying the concept in ceramic studies, not least in Egypt, has in part been the lack of excavated pottery workshops to which it might be applied as well as a relative lack of ethnoarchaeological studies of pottery production in Egypt. The writer has been fortunate enough to be involved in the excavation of several pottery production sites in Egypt as well as having conducted ethnoarchaeological work and this paper attempts to draw on some of these results. Monteix has clearly demonstrated that by identifying the individual steps in a production chain these can be mapped onto the excavated surface and a pattern of movement/circulation around the working space be suggested from them. The pattern so derived may draw attention to gaps in the chaîne which call for explanation or identify apparent bottlenecks or unexpected changes of direction within the operational flow. In the view of the writer this approach has much to offer to the study of crafts and industries in Egypt and the current paper is an attempt to demonstrate its applicability there. In order to do this it is first necessary to identify the steps, or links, in the chaîne opératoire for pottery production. Pottery Production in Egypt The basic steps in the production of pottery in Egypt are the same as those across the world and so will only be briefly summarised here. At their most basic they involve the procurement of a plastic material, in the form of clay, and its transformation into an aplastic material through the use of heat. These can be seen as what Lemmonier (1992, 21-24) has described as ‘strategic tasks’, conveniently summarised by Schlanger (2005, 27) as ‘fixed operations which cannot be tampered with or cancelled without undermining the whole project’. These are in contrast to ‘technical variants’ which have an effect on the task but which are a matter of technical 1 The writer was privileged to hear Monteix’s paper at the recent conference Craft Production Systems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective held in Bonn and is grateful to him for a copy of his paper on the bakeries of Pompeii as well as a draft of his forthcoming paper. 28 P. Nicholson and cultural choice. In the case of pottery production these might include the decision on whether or not to add aplastic material (‘temper’ or ‘filler’) to the clay in order to modify its working properties (for discussion see Rye 1976; Rice 1987, 406-413). The links in the pottery chaîne may be summarised as follows: 1. Raw material procurement. Clay may be obtained from a variety of different sources (Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 160-161). In Egypt the commonest of these is from the banks of the Nile. This iron-rich, and consequently red-firing2 clay, accounts for perhaps some 90% of all ancient Egyptian ceramics and is generally referred to by Egyptologists as ‘Nile Silt Ware’ (Arnold and Bourriau 1993, 160-161). This is in contrast to the much more localised and white-firing3 ‘marl clay’ (Arnold 1981) which has tended to be used for a more limited range of wares (Nicholson and Patterson 1985; Nicholson and Patterson 1989). ‘Temper’ or ‘filler’ material may also need to be transported to the workshop. However, in the case of many Egyptian workshops where sand is used in this role it can be obtained very close to the site. Dung temper may also be used and is, again, readily obtained from the numbers of animals used in agriculture and transport in both ancient and modern times. 2. Raw material transport. Where clay is not located at the site of the workshop it must be brought there by some means. This frequently employs human, animal or water transport or some combination of these. Since the material is heavy as well as bulky the quantities transported can sometimes be a reflection of the scale of the workshop since those producing very large quantities of ware and doing so for all or most of the year are likely to require large quantities of clay in order to sustain their production. The situation for those making pottery only for their own domestic use is very different. The transport of tempering materials can be achieved in the same way. 3. Paste preparation. This may be a simple matter of the addition of water followed by the kneading of the clay in order to homogenise it and Iron rich clays will fire red in an oxidising kiln atmosphere, black where oxygen is lacking, so-called reduction firing. 3 The white surface is from the efflorescence of a calcareous surface ‘bloom’ as the clay dries. In broken section the clay is frequently pink in colour. 2 Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 29 to drive out trapped air. However, in the Egyptian situation there may be two contrasting operations, facets of Lemmonier’s (1992) ‘technical choice’. These are (a) the removal of aplastic materials or (b) the addition of aplastic materials. The two may sometimes be combined. In (a) it may be necessary to remove small stones, shells, pieces of calcite or gypsum from a clay along with any vegetal material which has become incorporated, perhaps as a result of its having been excavated from a vegetated river bank. In (b) sand, crushed stone, dung or chaff might be added to the clay in order to make it more porous and therefore more suitable as a porous container (Nicholson 1995a; 2002) or to help it to withstand thermal shock (Cardew 1952; Woods 1986). 4. Shaping. There are numerous ways in which the shaping of the prepared paste can be achieved (Hodges 1964/1981) though these can be divided into two broad classes, namely (a) hand making and (b) wheel-making. In (a) the clay is shaped without the aid of a mechanical device. This may be achieved by pinching the clay, forming it into rings or coils, cutting it into slabs or drawing it up with tools, most notably a ‘paddle and anvil’. In (b) a wheel is employed to develop rotary motion (cf. Childe 1954). Such a wheel may be powered by kicking a flywheel or by spinning by hand or with a stick. Hand-making is employed by some Egyptian potters working in the modern era (Blackman 1927) while wheel throwing was the method adopted throughout most of the Pharaonic era (Doherty 2015) as well as being practiced today. Incised or applied decoration might be added to the pot at the end of this shaping stage of the process as a technical variation. 5. Drying. In this stage the completed (or sometimes partially completed) pot is set to dry. This may take place indoors or outdoors according to the stage of completeness of the vessel (Nicholson and Patterson 1985) and may be a process of one, two or more stages. The drying process is essential so that as much moisture as possible escapes from the clay fabric before it is subject to the intense heat of firing, which would otherwise generate a considerable body of steam whose failure to escape properly would cause damage to the desired product. A further stage of technical variation is possible at this point since vessels might be covered in a layer of slip, be burnished or be painted. 6. Firing of the shaped product. Firing, it may be argued, is the critical point in ceramic production since it renders a change of state, changing 30 P. Nicholson the plastic clay to an aplastic ceramic. Any error made before this point can, at worst, be overcome by simply adding water to the part finished product and kneading it again to be re-cycled as clay. Once firing has taken place and the chemically combined water in the clay has been driven off it cannot be re-shaped by the potter (although it can be further broken up and ground down for use as a temper/filler generally referred to as ‘grog’ by archaeologists – Hodges 1964/1981, 20). The change of state from plastic to aplastic is achieved through the use of heat either in a simple open firing (sometimes erroneously referred to as ‘bonfire firing’) or in a kiln. The updraught kiln, in which the fire is located beneath the charge of vessels and separated from them by a perforated floor or chequer is almost universally used by traditional potters in contemporary Egypt as well as accounting for the firing of most pharaonic pottery. 7. Post-firing processing. This step is essentially a technical variation. Fired vessels may be checked by the potter for defects and where these are found an attempt can be made to remedy them. Such remedies might include the insertion of new clay, or even dough, into cracks or holes in a pot followed by the covering of the surface in a fugitive slip. Such post-firing treatments are extremely difficult to detect archaeologically, leaving little or no trace on the vessels and generally requiring no specific processing area within the production space. The approach taken by Monteix (2016) is to attempt to map the stages of production onto the physical spaces in which they took place. However, there are potential problems in doing this in the ancient Egyptian context, not least because it is likely that the stages of at least some crafts took place outside the workshop building itself, in the courtyard or other open areas (Shaw 2004, 17) or even in the street itself. The evidence provided by ethnographic studies and by artistic representations can be helpful here but is not, of course, definitive. Case Study 1: Contemporary Deir el-Gharbi, Upper Egypt In order to test the use of the chaîne opératoire, as applied by Monteix, on an Egyptian situation, the contemporary potting settlement at Deir el-Gharbi in Upper Egypt has been chosen. This site forms part of the Ballas industry and has produced two handled, amphora-like vessels for the transport and short term storage of water since at least the Roman era in Egypt whilst use of the clay source has a much longer ancestry Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 31 (Arnold 1981). The industry was examined in two studies during the 1980s (Nicholson and Patterson 1985; Nicholson and Patterson 1989). The steps in the chaîne opératoire can be identified as set out below and are summarised in plates 1 and 2. 1. Clay procurement. Clay is obtained from adit mines in the hills of the Western Desert at some distance from the village of Deir el-Gharbi itself. It is a marl clay and when extracted is in the form of rock-like lumps. 2. Clay transport. Once extracted the clay is transported from the mines to the village by donkey or camel. In the mid-1980s some potters had arranged to have larger quantities moved by tractor and trailer. 3. Clay preparation. Once the clay reaches the workshops it is unloaded into piles beside one of the trampling pits. It is then broken into smaller pieces using hammers and the pieces thrown into the shallow pit(s). It is then soaked in water and left to stand whilst it absorbs the water and the individual clay layers begin to delaminate. More water is added and the clay is then trampled using a water buffalo led around by one of the potter’s assistants. The assistant works barefoot and during the trampling process picks out any aplastic material which he detects as a result of treading on it. The commonest such material is lumps of calcite which run as veins through the clay. If left in the mixed clay it would cause spalling of the finished vessel. No material is deliberately added to the clay at this stage but dung from the water buffalo may, inevitably, be incorporated into the mixture. It is not, however, present in significant quantities and is unlikely to be mistaken for deliberate dung temper by ceramicists. This, however, is but the first stage of clay preparation at Deir el-Gharbi. The clay is next removed from the pit and carried into the workshop where it is dumped onto the trampling floor, located in front of the potter’s wheel. This dump of clay is arranged as a low circular mound about 30cm high. The mound of clay is then trampled in a very organised and systematic manner by two assistants who tread it against the cobbled surface of the floor. As they do this they drive out air from the clay and also have the opportunity to locate any aplastic material missed during the first stage of trampling. Once the assistant potters are satisfied that the clay is sufficiently well processed it is removed from the trampling floor and piled into a mound in a corner of the workshop. 32 P. Nicholson 4. Clay shaping (stage i). This is carried out by the master potter who is seated at his wheel and who works alongside an assistant. The assistant first uses his extended hand and forearm to cut through the pile of clay and removes a large slab of it from the pile. This he takes to a sloping area of the workbench beside the potter’s wheel and proceeds to wedge it, a process designed to drive out any remaining trapped air. As he does this he gradually rolls and revolves the mass of clay until it is transformed into a tall cone resembling an artillery shell in shape. The potter takes the cone and centres it on the wheel head. He proceeds to open the cone into a cylinder and gradually forms the rim, neck and shoulders of his intended amphora-like vessel. He does not, however, make use of the very bottom part of the cone which is left as a solid lump. Whilst this shaping process is going on the assistant has prepared the next cone, as he finishes it so the potter finishes the shaping and hands the partfinished vessel to the assistant to take it away to the drying room attached to the workshop. This is an aspect of this industry to which attention can be drawn through study of the chaîne opératoire (below). 5. Clay drying (stage i). The partly finished Ballas jars are stood on their unfinished bottoms in the drying room. The production of these is usually completed in the late morning and by mid-afternoon further assistants, at Ballas usually the children of the potter and his assistants, come into the drying room and add handles to the jars. The handles are pulled from lumps of clay which are brought from the clay pile in the main workroom. The process of handle making and attachment is very rapid. The jars, with their upper part now complete, are left to dry overnight. 6. Clay shaping (stage ii). Next morning the partially dried jar’s tops are taken from the drying room and inverted on the wheel which has a bucketlike arrangement on the wheel head. This has two slits in it into which the handles fit so that the whole acts as a kind of chuck for the throwing process. The potter re-wets the lump of clay which remains as the base of the original cone and begins to shape it into a cylinder which he gradually draws outwards before bringing it inwards to form the base. As he starts to bring it in again he slows the wheel and impresses a pre-cut length of cord around the widest point of the vessel which helps to support it as he brings in the clay to close the base. The vessel is now complete, though at two different stages of drying – the upper part approaching or at, the green-hard4 4 Also known as the leather-hard stage. Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 33 stage, the lower part soft. The potter’s assistant hands the potter the next partially finished vessel and takes the completed one outside to dry. 7. Clay drying (stage ii). Outside the workshop, usually close to the kiln, the now completed vessels are stood on their rims (the driest and so strongest part of the vessel) in order that the drying process can be completed. As drying progresses so an effloresced surface begins to form on the vessels. After a time the assistants go around and remove all the strings from the bases as they start to dry away from the vessel. These are taken back to the workshop where they are re-used. Once the vessel bases are judged to be sufficiently dry to withstand the weight of the vessel the pots are turned right side up so that air can circulate inside them and dry them thoroughly. Efflorescence continues and it is common to see a less well effloresced patch on the base of a vessel where it has been in contact with the sand of the drying area. 8. Firing of the shaped product. Once sufficient vessels have been produced and dried (usually in the order of 625 at Deir el-Gharbi) they are loaded, upside down, into the kiln for firing. Loading is a very careful process and the vessels are arranged in 5 layers5 before the top layer is covered with broken sherds. These sherds may provide some insulation if the weather changes and becomes windy during firing but their main purpose is to form a layer on which soot can build up without affecting the charge of vessels. Firing itself is also carefully carried out using much the same quantity of fuel irrespective of weather conditions (see Nicholson and Patterson 1989 for fuller discussion). 9. Post-firing processing. At Deir el-Gharbi there is generally no postfiring processing. The vessels have a now permanently fused white surface6 and so need no fugitive or other slip treatment. Very occasionally a broken sherd used to separate vessels during the firing may have adhered to the vessels, usually in the lowermost layer where temperatures are highest, and needs to be removed but otherwise there is no special treatment. Vessels are unloaded and then stacked ready for distribution and sale. It is at this This applies to the standard sized vessels. If a batch of smaller ones is prepared there might be a greater number of vessels and more layers. 6 Though vitrification has taken place this surface is not itself glassy (i.e. vitreous) except in the case of over-firing when it is usually discoloured to a greenish hue. It is this surface to which sherds sometimes adhere in firing. 5 34 P. Nicholson point that it becomes apparent whether any aplastic material has been missed since the calcite, dehydrated during firing, re-hydrates and expands and in doing so spalls the surface of the pot. These spalls are very easily spotted as with the white surface broken away the pink of the clay is visible along with the offending white speck of calcite. The chaîne opératoire concept has sometimes been used to look the sale, use and discard of products. However, the focus of this paper is the use of the concept in the examination of workshops and so these steps are not considered here. Case Study 1: Discussion (Pls. 1-2) Mapping of the operational sequence described above onto the plan of a workshop at Deir el-Gharbi immediately draws attention to features of the layout which may not be immediately apparent from simply looking at the basic plan alongside a narrative of the work which takes place in the building. Thinking of the plan from the standpoint of someone used to the Fordian mass-production layouts of the 20th and 21st Centuries (Ford 1926, but see also Batchelor 1994, 6 n. 4). there are ‘problems’ with it. The doorway into the workshop from the outdoor preparation area is narrow, as is that between the workshop and drying room. It is not possible for two adults to pass one another in such a doorway. This is helpful in drawing attention to an aspect of working practice – two adults do not need to pass one another in this opening, only one assistant uses the doorways at a time. Their narrowness does, however, limit what can be carried through them and this is potentially more problematic. Again the doorway indicates the maximum size of any product, but is still smaller than might seem ideal for a mass-production operation. The reason is probably to be found in the desire to keep the workshop cool and dark. If additional light or warmth is required the potter has his assistant remove part of the roof above his wheel. In an archaeological situation, where the roof has been lost, such a detail would be lost and it is likely that one might assume that the workshop was lacking in light. This lack of physical evidence draws attention to an important point made by Monteix (2016, 170) ‘only production phases that can be traced through material remains can be reconstructed’. In the present context the stages are known from direct ethnographic observation, but if they were not then the workshop would be more difficult to understand. For example, Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 35 the clay preparation pits outside the workshop are obvious but inside, with the clay pile gone, only a cobbled floor would be left. Someone with a knowledge of pottery workshops might note that it was probably for clay preparation but such hard surfaces are not universal nor exclusive to pottery workshops. The features of the workbench would probably be apparent even if the wheel itself had gone, but the function of the drying room would be much less obvious. In a roofless condition it might be thought to be a courtyard and – despite the narrowness of the door – buffalo have been observed grazing in abandoned workshops and drying rooms which serve as just such enclosures. The outdoor drying area is not marked in any special way and though its existence might be expected its location could not be detected with certainty, not least since its position is not rigidly fixed. What is also lacking within the workshop is a knowledge of time. Because the essential stages of pottery production are known from numerous studies it is obvious that some operations must be carried out before others can happen. However, what is less easy, or may be impossible, to ascertain is whether some operations went on simultaneously and how long it took to produce particular vessels. In the case of Deir el-Gharbi if the wheel was reconstructed it would be apparent that the potter could not easily get up from his seat to get more clay each time he needed it. As a result it is safe to assume that he worked with at least one assistant. However, if it was realised that this was part of a whole village of specialised potters who are essentially mass-producing a particular type of vessel, which might become apparent from large area excavations, then the archaeologist might begin to think in terms of greater numbers of workshop staff. In practice each workshop has a minimum of three people and more usually four. In this way clay can be prepared in the outdoor pits or on the trampling floor at the same time the potter is being supplied with cones or bases on which to work. Study of the finished Ballas jars might indicate that they were made in two stages but it would not be certain that the tops were left to dry overnight before the bases were made the next day and the whole set to dry outside. The chaîne opératoire approach then, draws attention to features of the workshop, but in an archaeological context where particular production steps may be invisible, has its uncertainties. Fortunately, most products require a number of set manufacturing stages and these can be observed ethnographically and inferred archaeologically, albeit with caution. Monteix (2016) points out that not all of the bakeries in his study had all of the features which might be expected, thus tempering (Monteix 2016, 156)7 might be 7 Tempering here refers to a bread making process and is unrelated to ceramic tempering. 36 P. Nicholson done at a location away from the workshop and one should be aware that in some instances clay preparation or even firing might be done away from the workshop. Case Study 2: Pictorial Evidence Before turning to the evidence of an excavated ancient Egyptian pottery workshop it is worth considering what can be learned from the examination of representational evidence of craft scenes. Those studying ancient Egyptian pottery technology are fortunate in having at their disposal a number of so-called ‘daily life’ scenes which depict various aspects of crafts and industries of their time. For the purposes of this study I will draw on two of these from the site of Beni Hasan in Middle Egypt. The tombs are of Bakt III (BH15) of the 11th Dynasty (2055-1985 BC – Pl. 3: 1) and of Amenemhat (BH2) which dates to the early 12th Dynasty (1985-1795 BC – Pl. 3: 2) (Newberry 1893; Newberry and Fraser 1894). Both of these scenes are well known but have usually been considered simply a part of a series of stock views of ‘daily life’ and perhaps more noteworthy for their artistic depiction of craft scenes than for their reality, though Holthoer (1977) recognised that the scenes were useful guides to the stages in ceramic production. However, Nicholson and Doherty (2016) have recently argued that the scenes have a greater utility and that they might be considered as detailed ethnographies, at least for pottery production. Both scenes show broadly the same operations taking place; clay preparation, clay shaping, firing and kiln unloading. Neither scene shows the operations taking place in what might be regarded as a step-by-step fashion, beginning with clay preparation and finishing with the taking of vessels for market. Rather, the scenes show a range of actions taking place in what at first seems to be a confused order. However, it can be argued that what the artist is attempting to show here is one of the things which is lacking in the archaeological examination of an excavated workshop, namely the timing of actions. These scenes attempt to inform the viewer that several activities are taking place at once. It is not clear if all actually took place simultaneously since there is no information as to the size of the workshop or whether the same individual might be represented several times, but there are clues. To take the Bakt III scene as an example (Pl. 3: 1), it begins with a potter at his wheel, behind him stand two assistants who are treading clay Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 37 in the same systematic way as observed at Deir el-Gharbi (above). It might be thought that their positioning is one of artistic balance but, as has been seen at Deir el-Gharbi, it is not, rather the systematic treading around a pile of clay is represented. Behind these figures clay is being shaped by hand into a cone or mound and carried over to a potter at his wheel. The wheel head is empty, ready to receive the cone and behind the seated potter is a finished vessel, coloured red to show that it has been fired. This probably holds water for wetting the clay or possibly ash for dusting the wheel head. In his hand is a grey lump, perhaps clay or another substance being used to lubricate the wheel pivot (Nicholson and Doherty 2016). In front of this potter are four more, each shaping vessels on the wheel from a mound of clay like that being carried by the assistant. It is possible that one of these is meant as the same person as the one who is waiting with an empty wheel head, however, each of the four is making vessels ‘on the hump’ of clay and there seems little reason to repeat the scene several times, it seems more likely that what is being depicted is a workshop where up to seven potters work at the wheel served by a number of assistants and all of these activities are going on roughly simultaneously. Above the seated potters (with the exception of the one at the start of the scene) are shown finished, but unfired, vessels. This may be an attempt not only to show which forms are being made but also to show where they are in the production cycle, thus the potter on the far left, at the start of the scene, is just beginning work and has produced nothing, the next one has made a vessel but awaits more clay whilst the next four are already producing vessels and have each completed two (or perhaps more if the two are simply an indication of production). Moving to the next register of the scene, on the left we see an assistant standing to the right of a quantity of unfired pots. The scene is helpfully captioned as ‘drying’ so making it clear that this is the drying area for the products which have presumably been collected from the smaller groupings made near the wheel by another assistant. Behind this figure we see a squatting individual who holds a large grey object, possibly clay for mending the kiln or perhaps a vessel which he is burnishing or to which he is applying a slip – the scene is damaged and cannot be interpreted with any certainty. In front of the damaged figure is a man firing the kiln, its red glow clearly visible at the entrance. The next scene shows the kiln being unloaded by two men, it is clear that this is unloading rather than loading of a second 38 P. Nicholson kiln because the vessels have now become red showing that they are fired.8 The scene ends with the carrying away of the fired, red, vessels in baskets – presumably ready for sale. Although given in a slightly different order, the elements of the Amenemhat scene (Pl. 3: 2) are essentially the same as those in Bakt III. The impression is of a busy workshop with numerous stages of production taking place. What we are not told in the hieroglyphic captions and what we cannot know with any certainty is whether firing took place daily whilst throwing of vessels continued or whether it happened on another day. It might be argued that the change of register in the Bakt III scene, starting the second register with drying, may be an attempt to show a subsequent day or later time but it may simply be a matter of convenience within the space and in the Amenemhat scene kiln unloading is happening in the midst of forming. The Amenemhat scene is later in date than that in Bakt III and is less detailed, it may be drawing on a selection of the commonest scenes whilst giving an indication of activities happening more or less contemporaneously. Enough has, it is hoped, been said to indicate that these scenes, and others like them, are more than decorative, at least in the case of pottery (see however Stevens and Eccleston 2007, 146). They can be used to indicate the steps in the production sequence, steps which are known to be technologically necessary. They also add information which might not be known simply by applying the chaîne opératoire to an excavated workshop. For example, the throwing of vessels on a hump of clay might not be evident. Here then we have the suggestion that workshops could be busy places with multiple workers and that production stages might be happening simultaneously. What the scenes lack is any sense of the physical space of the workshops and for that we must turn to archaeological examples. Case Study 3: An Excavated Workshop at Tell el-Amarna Tell el-Amarna, the ancient city of Akhetaten was founded by the so-called ‘heretic pharaoh’ Akhenaten (1352-1336 BC) around the 5th year of his reign (Kemp 2012, 34). It was occupied for only a couple of decades before abandonment and the lack of later building on the site has meant that large areas of the site are well preserved. Fraser and Newberry (1894) do not show the colours of the vessels but rather give all in outline. It is necessary to look at a colour image for these. 8 Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 39 Amongst the well preserved areas are several pottery workshops including at site Q48.49 (Kirby and Tooley 1989; Nicholson 1989), one discovered by Borchardt at P47.20 but mistaken for a bread making installation (Borchardt 1933; Borchardt and Ricke 1980, plan 2; Nicholson 1995b) and as part of the more complicated industrial area at site O45.1 (Nicholson 2007). The workshop at Q48.4 provides a useful example in the context of the present discussion. The workshop (Pl. 4) is in a walled enclosure and comprises a small chamber (area 12) with a doorway on its north side. This chamber contained a pottery jar (zir) set into the floor and nearby a brick lined pit in which was found the remains of a potter’s wheel of the type seen in use in the Beni Hasan scenes. If this room is the original location of the wheel then it would be reasonable to assume that the zir might have served as a water container. Its size and depth seem unnecessarily large, but it may well have been used as a reservoir from which a smaller vessel was regularly filled during the working day. By leaving the room by the doorway on the north side a worker could turn west and immediately south to walk into area 1 which is a long building with a clay preparation pit. A wall was later added on its east side but previously it would have been open in that direction and would give easy access onto the central area of the walled enclosure where two kilns (one of them in the course of construction and so never used) are located. One should, however, think of the workshop using the chaîne opératoire. In taking this approach it is evident that, just as at Deir el-Gharbi, the clay for use in the workshop must have been brought in, in this case from the river Nile to the west, which would mean crossing the ancient city to reach this desert edge location. The obvious place for clay to be dumped when brought to the workshop would be in area 1, near the clay pits and extending perhaps beyond the line of the later wall, toward the centre of the courtyard. Since the quantities of clay required and the number of deliveries made each week/month/year are unknown one can only speculate on the kind of storage area required. Preparation. Once at the workshop the clay would be put into the clay pits and wetted. At this workshop there is no trace of a hard surface for clay trampling such as that observed at Deir el-Gharbi. Such a surface is known at the O45.1 workshop (Nicholson 2007, 150), however, showing that they were sometimes used in ancient times. The numbers refer to the grid layout used at Amarna. For details see Kemp and Garfi (1993). 9 40 P. Nicholson Shaping. From the preparation area the clay would be carried indoors into area 12. It is unlikely that any further treading of the material would take place here, but it may have been the locality in which the clay was thrown on the wheel. The function of the lined pit is uncertain. It may have been a bin for storing clay, but this seems unlikely. Perhaps it served for an assistant to stand in to help spin the potter’s wheel, although it is known that they can be managed by a single individual – as is shown in the Beni Hasan scenes discussed above. It should also be borne in mind that the wheel, though found in area 12, may not originally have come from this part of the site. It may be that it was used indoors only at particularly hot or cold periods of the year and was otherwise located somewhere in the courtyard. Shaw (2004, 17) has suggested that in ancient Egypt much work was probably undertaken outdoors and even in the street rather than in the discrete workshops which we in the modern west tend to envisage. Such a courtyard location is attested by the positioning of the wheel (albeit a kick-wheel) at the workshop at Deir Mawas in middle Egypt (Nicholson 1995a, 280). Drying. The excavations at Q48.4 did not reveal a clearly defined drying area. However, it is most likely that the vessels would have been placed to dry in the main courtyard to the east of the clay pits. This is another instance where one must face the limitations of the archaeological evidence. There seems to be no connection between areas 12 (the likely spot for the wheel for at least some of the year) and area 13 to its east. Whilst it is possible that the walls around area 12 were only a few courses high and supported a shade this cannot be proven and there is no evidence that one could step from area 12 direct into area 13. This means that access to the courtyard would have had to be via area 1, not the most obvious choice from the perspective of workshop efficiency. It is possible that immediately east of the later wall which marks the eastern limit of area 1 there was a veranda running from the south-east wall of area 13 to the north east wall of area 3 which would have provided some shade for vessels when first put outdoors (and also a possible location for the wheel when the weather was suitable) with the more fully dried vessels being moved further east, toward the kilns, later in the drying process. Unlike the situation at Deir el-Gharbi the kilns are not of great size and as a result it may be suggested that production was similarly smaller in scale and the need of extensive drying areas accordingly less. That a second kiln was under construction might mean either that the first was ending its useful life or that production was expanding. Whatever the situation it seems likely that the courtyard area would offer ample space for the drying of vessels. Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 41 Firing. From the proposed drying area in the courtyard, near to the kilns, it would be an easy task to load the vessels for firing. The spread of ash on the south of the kilns shows that they were cleaned out largely via the stokehole and the ash thrown there. The route by which the finished vessels left the workshop is unclear. In passing one should note that another workshop may be present in the southern range of rooms but its status is uncertain and so has not been considered here. Case Study 3: Discussion Using the chaîne opératoire concept it is possible to propose a different interpretation of the evidence from Q48.4. The suggestion made in plate 4 makes use of the findspot data but also means that the person bringing clay to the potter in area 12 must walk around to the entrance and then carry out the finished product by the same route. Whilst this is entirely possible it is not very efficient. If the wheel, which was not complete when found and which may not be in its original location, was originally located to the south of the clay preparation pit as in plate 5 then the route taken by an assistant is much simpler. Given that the wall between area 1 and the courtyard is a later addition as the excavators suggest the route is still more simple. One should also consider the matter of scale of production. If Q48.4 was a small-scale operation doing little more than producing pottery for the use of one of the large villas at Amarna then the apparently inefficient aspects of its layout are of little significance since the facility might be used only on an occasional basis. If, however, the facility were intended to supply more widely then thought needs to be given as to why the rather awkward arrangement of parts of the workshop were tolerated. The site is located close to a well from which water seems to have been drawn and sent to Workmen’s Village to the east of the site (Renfrew 1987, 98). Given the workshops proximity to the water source and supply route to the village it is tempting to speculate that it may have been the source of supply for the pottery sent to the workmen who are thought to have been in the employ of the state. If this was the case, then it must be assumed that production was both regular and substantial and the rather clumsy layout of the workshop seems incongruous. The reason that a more efficient scheme is not apparent may be to do with the relatively short-lived nature of the site. Its exact duration is unknown 42 P. Nicholson but Kemp (pers. comm.) agrees that it was not in operation over a long period. Evidence for this comes from one of the kilns which was still being completed, and had never been fired, at the time the site was abandoned. This may be because the workshop was built only late in the life of the city and was abandoned with it, or because – like other parts of the settlement – it was subject to a change in the grand plan and was no longer needed. In either instance a short duration might explain why a more efficient layout had not been employed, though one must also bear in mind that the operating conditions of such sites were very different to those of the modern factory. The ‘mapping’ of chaîne opératoire steps onto the plans of workshops provides a focus for revision and reinterpretation of activities. This does not mean, of course, that workshops are always efficiently or logically laid out. Their plan and the working methods practiced within them may have evolved over time and the workers have become so accustomed to them that no attempt is made to rationalise the system. Ancient Egyptian workshops did not operate under the same economic conditions as do modern factories and it should not, therefore, be expected that their layouts will always be rational and efficient. However, the heuristic potential of the chaîne opératoire in examining them opens new possibilities for interpretation. Conclusions In conclusion it can be said that whilst the steps of production which characterise the usual use of the chaîne opératoire are not new in archaeology, both in Egypt and elsewhere, the application of a spatial dimension to the discussion renders the concept much more useful than it might otherwise be. Consideration of the locations in which particular tasks took place and the means of ingress and egress to these areas has proven to be a valuable heuristic concept. Attention is drawn to the limitations of the archaeological data – how can particular rooms, such as drying rooms, be interpreted in the absence of any physical evidence of the process? What distinguishes them from a store room? Where processes take place in the open how safe are we in inferring them because of the presence of other structures –as for example the likely drying areas at Amarna Q48.4? Where buildings in Egypt survive to only a few courses high, and where it is known from ethnographic data that potters often work under temporary shade or in the open, is it reasonable to postulate that these buildings had only partial walls? Similarly, are we perhaps too greatly influenced by the findspot of some items, such as Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 43 the potter’s wheel at Q48.4? In this instance it was not found complete, only the top stone was present; that it occurred in a room with a zir sunk into the floor and which might therefore have served as a water container in potting could be entirely coincidental. In looking at the plan of the site one might wonder if the wheel might not be better located in area 1, somewhere near feature [3720] and an alternative is presented in plate 5. Whilst it cannot be proven that this is the actual layout of the workshop it does offer a realistic, and perhaps more plausible alternative. The visual evidence of scenes such as those at Beni Hasan must be used cautiously but a knowledge of the necessary steps in production helps in understanding them and using them in turn to give some indication of workshop scale and perhaps time-depth to the relatively bare archaeological data. It is hoped that enough has been shown to demonstrate the utility of Monteix’s (2016) method of relating the chaîne opératoire to spatial distributions and its power as an aid to archaeological interpretation. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Nicolas Monteix for sending me a copy of his 2016 paper and for the opportunity of discussing his work at the recent Craft Production Systems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective meeting held in Bonn and for a copy of his paper for publication in the proceedings of that meeting. He kindly read an earlier draft of this paper. I am indebted to the organisers of the Bonn conference for their invitation to attend the meeting and for their generosity in financing the visit. The ethnographic work at Deir el-Gharbi was carried out jointly with Dr. Helen Patterson whose input to the project is gratefully acknowledged, while the work at Deir el-Gharbi was carried out during my time as part of the Amarna Project directed by Professor Barry Kemp to whom I am grateful for his encouragement to carry out such work and similarly the work conducted at O45.1 and P47.20 at Amarna. I am indebted to Professor Kemp for permission to use the plan of Q48.4 reproduced here. Similarly, I am grateful to my many colleagues at Amarna who have helped with various aspects of my work at the site and to the villagers of Hagg Qandil and El-Till who have worked with me on the excavations there. The Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities kindly granted permission to work at the site and their reprsentatives ably oversaw the excavations. The Egypt Exploration Society kindly granted permission for the Beni Hasan figures to be reproduced here. 44 P. Nicholson Dr. Sarah Doherty co-authored the paper cited below dealing with the potting scenes from Beni Hasan and I am grateful to her for discussions of these. I am indebted to Janine Bourriau (Cambridge University), Dr. Steve Mills (Cardiff University) and to Cerian Whitehurst for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The plates were prepared by Kirsty Harding of the School of History, Archaeology and Religion at Cardiff University and I am indebted to her for her work on them. Lastly, I am grateful for the comments of two anonymous reviewers of this paper and for the assistance of Pawel Golyzniak in the preparation of the final manuscript. References Arnold D. 1981. Ägyptische Mergeltone (‘Wüstentone’) und die Herkunft einer Mergeltonware des Mittleren Reiches aus der Gegend von Memphis. In D. Arnold (ed.), Studien zur altägyptishen Keramik, 167-191. Mainz. Arnold D. and Bourriau J. D. 1993. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz. Batchelor R. 1994. Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernisation and Design. Manchester. Blackman W. S. 1927. The Fellahin of Upper Egypt. London. Bloxam E. 2015. ‘A Place Full of Whispers’: Socialising the Quarry Landscape of the Wadi Hammamat. CAJ 25 (4), 789-814, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774315000426. Borchardt L. 1933. Ein Brot. ZÄS 68, 73-79. Borchardt L. and Ricke H. 1980. Die Wohnhäuser in Tell el-Amarna. Berlin. Cardew M. 1952. Nigerian traditional pottery. Nigeria 39, 188-201. Childe V. G. 1954. Rotary motion. In C. Singer, E. J., Holmyard. and A. R. Hall (eds.), A History of Technology. Vol. 1: From Early Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires, 187-215. Oxford. Childe V. G. 1956. Man Makes Himself. 3rd ed. London. Doherty S. K. 2015. The Origins and Use of the Potter’s Wheel in Ancient Egypt. (Archaeopress Egyptology 7) Oxford. Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 45 Ford H. 1926. Mass production. In Encyclopedia Britannica 30, 821-823. Hodges H. 1964/1981. Artifacts. London. Holthoer R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery. (SJE 5.1). Copenhage, Stockholm. Keller C. M. and Keller J. D. 1996. Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work. Cambridge. Kemp B. J. 2012. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and its People. London. Kemp B. J. and Garfi S. 1993. A Survey of the Ancient City of El-Amarna. London. Kirby C. and Tooley A. M. J. 1989. Report on the 1987 excavation of Q48.4. In B. J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports V, 15-63. London. Lemonnier P. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Ann Arbor. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1943. Evolution et techniques. Vol. 1: L’Homme et la Matière. Paris. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1945. Evolution et techniques Vol. 2: Milieu et techniques. Paris. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1964. Le Geste et la parole. Vol. 1: Technique et Langage. Paris. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1965. Le Geste et la parole. Vol. 2: La Mémoire et les Rhythmes. Paris. Leroi-Gourhan A. 1993. Gesture and Speech. Trans. A. Bostock Berger. Cambridge, Mass. Monteix N. 2016. Contextualizing the operational sequence: Pompeian bakeries as a case study. In A. Wilson and M. Flohr (eds.), Urban Craftsmen in the Roman World, 153-179. Oxford. Monteix N. forthcoming. Using the chaine operatoire to interpret the layout of Roman workshops. In M. Bentz and T. Helms (eds.), Craft Production Systems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Bonn. Newberry P. E. 1893. Beni Hasan Part II. London. Newberry P. E. and Fraser W. 1894. Beni Hasan Part I. London. Nicholson P. T. 1989. The pottery kilns in Building Q48.4. In B. J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports V, 64-81. London. Nicholson P. T. 1995a. The potters of Deir Mawas. An ethnoarchaeological study. In B.J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports VI, 279-308. London. Nicholson P. T. 1995b. Kiln excavations at P47.20 (House of Ramose Complex). In B. J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports VI, 226-238. London. 46 P. Nicholson Nicholson P. T. 2002. Deir Mawas and Deir el-Gharbi: two contrasting ceramic traditions. In W. Z. Wendrich and G. van der Kooij (eds.), Moving Matters: Ethnoarchaeology in the Near East. Proceeding of the International Seminar Held in Cairo, 7-10 December 1998, 139-146. Leiden. Nicholson P. T. 2007. Brilliant Things for Akhenaten. The Production of Glass, Vitreous Materials and Pottery at Amarna Site O45.1. London. Nicholson P. T. and Patterson H. L. 1985. Pottery making in Upper Egypt: An ethnoarchaeological study. WorldArch 17 (2), 222-239, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979964. Nicholson P. T. and Patterson H. L. 1989. Ceramic technology in Upper Egypt: A study of pottery firing. WorldArch 21 (1), 71-86, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1989.9980091. Nicholson P. T. and Doherty S. 2016. Arts and Crafts: Artistic Representations as Ethno-Archaeology. A Guide to Craft Technique. In B. Bader, C. M. Knoblauch and C. Köhler (eds.), Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century, 435-450. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 245) Leuven. Nordström H.-Å. and Bourriau J. D. 1993. Fascicle 2: Ceramic technology: Clays and fabrics. In D. Arnold and J. D. Bourriau (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, 143-190. Mainz. Renfrew A. C. 1987. Survey of Site X2. In B. J. Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports IV, 87-102. London. Rice P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago. Rye O. S. 1976. Keeping your temper under control: Materials and the manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11 (2), 106-37, [on-line] https://doi. org/10.1002/j.1834-4453.1976.tb00245.x. Schlanger N. 2005. The chaîne opératoire. In C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London. Shaw I. 2004. Identity and occupation: how did individuals define themselves and their work in the Egyptian New Kingdom? In J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation: The Social Context of Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650-1150 BC, 12-24. Oxford. Shaw I. 2012. Ancient Egyptian Technology and Innovation. London. Singer C., Holmyard E. J. and Hall A. R. 1954. A History of Technology. Vol. 1: From Early Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires. Oxford. Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... 47 Stevens A. and Eccleston M. 2007. Craft production and technology. In T. Wilkinson (ed.), The Egyptian World, 146-159. London, New York, [on-line] http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203820933.ch11. Woods A. J. 1986. Form, fabric and function: some observation so the cooking pot in antiquity. In W. D. Kingery (ed.), Ceramics and Civilization. Vol. 2: Technology and Style, 157-172. Columbus, Ohio, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340020209. Paul Nicholson Cardiff University, U.K. [email protected] PLATE 1 P. Nicholson Pl. 1 – Plan of workshops and features at Deir el-Gharbi, part of the Ballas Industry. Adapted by Kirsty Harding from drawing by H. L. Patterson and P. T. Nicholson Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... PLATE 2 Pl. 2 – Plan of workshop and features at Deir el-Gharbi, part of the Ballas Industry. Adapted by Kirsty Harding from drawing by H. L. Patterson and P. T. Nicholson PLATE 3 P. Nicholson Pl. 3: 1 – Potting scene from the tomb of of Bakt III (BH15) of the 11th Dynasty (2055-1985 BC) at Beni Hasan, Middle Egypt. The scene is on the western end of the south wall of the main chamber, other parts of the scene have been omitted here. After Newberry 1893 pl. VII; reproduced Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society Pl. 3: 2 – Potting scene from Amenemhat (BH2) which dates to the early 12th Dynasty (1985-1795 BC) at Beni Hasan, Middle Egypt. After Newberry 1895, pl.11; reproduced Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society Pottery production in Egypt: the Chaîne Opératoire... PLATE 4 Pl. 4 – Plan of the workshop at Amarna site Q48.4 showing its first phase. The potter’s wheel was found in area 12. Original plan from Kirby and Tooley 1989, fig. 2.17, additional information by Kirsty Harding PLATE 5 P. Nicholson Pl. 5 – Plan of the workshop at Amarna site Q48.4 showing its first phase. The potter’s wheel was found in area 12 but in this interpretation, it is suggested that it might belong in area 1 (original plan from Kirby and Tooley 1989, fig. 2.17 additional information by Kirsty Harding) S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Diana Liesegang Heidelberg THE REIGN OF RAMESSES III – UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PERSONAL RELIGION Abstract: The phenomenon of “Personal Religion” influenced Egyptian culture for a long time and left behind an impressive heritage of literature, which shows the development of a historical-social change. The reign of Ramesses III is marked by these special religious-cultural changes and influenced the royal self-presentation of the Egyptian pharaoh and his contact with the divine world. The royal image of Ramesses III demonstrates new aspects in the relation between the king and the deities, which emphasized the effect of a special religious conception. It changed the internal structures of the Egyptian empire under the influence of “Personal Religion” and served as a special of royal legitimation. Keywords: Ramses III; Personal Religion; royal self-presentation; special religious conception; legitimation Introduction Ramesses III, the second king of the 20th Dynasty and the last great ruler of Ancient Egypt (Kitchen 2012, 1) has been presented in history as a significant Pharaoh and successful warlord, which still today determines the official image of him. He stands in the tradition of a number of important rulers, such as Thutmose III, who made Egypt to a major power. Ramesses III strove to obtain this political position for Egypt, which was under serious threat from important historical and political changes in the Ancient Near East during his reign (Grandet 1993, 161-164). The Ramesside age has been considered as a time of several changes in the political, intellectual DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.03 54 D. Liesegang and religious world, influencing all parts of the Egyptian society, from the common people up to the Pharaoh. This historical period contains many testimonies for the impact of the religious phenomenon of Personal Religion in Egypt’s religious literature, as well as in the royal literature. A famous example is the Poem of Ramesses II. This text contains an extraordinary call for help from Ramesses II to the god Amun-Re, as the king fought against the Hittites at the battlefield of Kadesh (1274 BC). His last-minute rescue by his soldiers was a sign of the divine support of Amun-Re (Assmann 1990, 262). Ramesses III was the last significant pharaoh in Egyptian history and the cultural heritage of his reign presents a time of historical cultural changes in Egyptian society, and also an intellectual vitality, especially in the religious space. The pharaoh is famous for his successful wars against the Sea People and the Libyans. The image of the great warrior-king is, immortalized up to the present in the monumental battle reliefs in his temples such as Medinet Habu or Karnak (O’Connor 2012, 241-242). The pictures show the invincible king and the inscriptions tell of the warlike power of Ramesses III using highly metaphorical language with very aggressive images (Liesegang 2008, 79-80). This presentation of Ramesses III as the great warrior and victorious king was for a long time the dominant image in history and science (Pls. 1-2). It overshadowed another side of Ramesses III, one which stands in complete contrast to the picture of the warrior-king, showing Ramesses III as a highly religious sovereign, who performed many religious and official tasks, honouring the gods and especially the god Amun-Re. The great Papyrus Harris I presents a list of the enormous donations and gifts of Ramesses III to the temple of AmunRe and to the temples of many other deities. It shows an impressive picture of the religious activities and generosity of this sovereign, who expressed his loyal relation and gratitude to the gods through his piety. The texts of Ramesses III contain motifs of Personal Religion and emphasize the absolute power of Amun-Re. The god orders the world and the fate of the people according to his will. In the long tradition of the royal self-presentation of the Egyptian kings it was always an essential point that the Pharaoh, as the living son and representative of the gods on earth, appears in a very serious and religious attitude. The inscriptions of Ramesses III show a dimension of religious presence which is extraordinary in the royal literature of Ancient Egypt. The time and the reign of Ramesses III have been the subject of numerous scientific studies, many of them dealing with historical or cultural aspects of this period. This article focusses on The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion 55 the religious engagement of Ramesses III in the cultic world of Ancient Egypt rather than on his military activities and his image as warrior-king. Discussion Personal Religion is one of the most interesting and influential historicalreligious developments in Ancient Egypt. It is based on a long tradition with roots in the area of religious belief, cult, practice and mental ideas of proper conduct according to the divine orders, and the teachings of the Old and Middle Kingdom provide examples (Breasted 1912, 344-70; Goelet 2012, 347-350). This religious phenomenon presents an extraordinary concept of the personal relationship between the individual and the divinity, regardless of the status or the power of the person. The evolution of Personal Religion, especially in the time of the New Kingdom, shows a highly interesting process from a specific religious aspect to a great new religious concept, which had a great impact on all of Egyptian society. The sources for the development of this new dimension and its different spiritual appearances lay in the time of the early 18th dynasty, where a new imagination about contact between the god and the people starts to change the cultic life and the roles of the religious participants (Assmann 1987, 47-55). The idea to do things in a good and right way and to act after the will of the divinity (Assmann 2005, 93-122) is connected with a special image of the divinity. It shows the god as a generous father who cares about the people as his own children, or as a shepherd taking care of his flock. The image of the good shepherd is described, for example, in the famous teaching of Merikare (Breasted 1912, 346). The god is presented as a generous creator of all things in nature and the cosmic world, and he cares for his people in a very positive and personal way. The picture of the good shepherd or herdsman is one of the most essential motifs in the conception of Personal Religion, emphasized by the famous words, spoken by the god in the same teaching text: ‘Serve god, that he may do the like for you, with offerings for replenishing the altars and with carving, it is that which will show forth your name, and god is aware of whoever serves him. Provide for men, the cattle of god, for he made heaven and earth at their desire.’ (Faulkner 1973, 180-192). This idea of a merciful god who cares about the people, which appeared in the texts of the Middle Kingdom, was resumed in the literature of the New Kingdom. It influenced the imagination of the relations among the gods, especially between the god Amun-Re and the people. 56 D. Liesegang The Papyrus Boulaq 17 (P. Kairo CG 58038), dated to the time of the reign of Amenhotep II (Luiselli 2004), is the earliest written testimony for the idea of a creator-god, who is distinguished by his uniqueness as the ‘One and Only’ source of life. The idea of a sole god as the creator of all things, who guides the fate of the world, is an essential aspect of the phenomenon of Personal Religion. The god does not appear in only one special form, because one of his most important characteristics is his secret and hidden nature. Thus, the media of light, air and the Nile are some of his methods to reveal an aspect of his nature to the populace, the divine and the human world (Assmann 2005, 159). The relation is characterized by direct and open contact between the divinity and the worshipper. This special constellation does not need another person as a third mediator, one who once constructed the spiritual exchange between the divine and the human world. The gods, mostly Amun-Re, the most powerful god of the Egyptian pantheon in the beginning of the New Kingdom, possess an open ear for the prayers of the common people and act as impartial judges, incorruptible and fair. ‘Amun-Re, the first, who was King, the god of earliest, the vizir of the poor! He does not take bribes from the guilty, he does not speak to the witness, he does not look at him who promises, Amun judges the country with his fingers, he speaks to the heart, he judges the guilty, he assigned him to the East, the righteous to the West.’ (Lichtheim 1980, 111) This special kind of personal trust, relationship and close proximity between the populace and the deities was independent of any religious support or control by the priests as representatives and cultic messengers of the king. The situation that the Egyptian Pharaoh was the chief-priest and the most important mediator between the divine world and his subjects changed. A common person could play this special role of the spiritual messenger or mediator, acting as a speaker of the gods. A statue of Amenhotep, Son of Hapu, the famous official of Amenhotep III has an inscription with which he invites the people to tell him their affairs for presenting them to the gods. ‘You people of Karnak, who wanted to see Amun, come to me! I sign your petitions. I am the reporter of this god.’ (Morenz 1992, 102). The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion 57 This inscription is an excellent example of the loss of royal might and status of the Egyptian sovereign as the most important mediator. The Pharaoh had to now share his function with every private citizen. In the New Kingdom and especially in the 18th and 19th Dynasties, the image of the Pharaoh as the absolute sovereign and highest priest and mediator between the gods and the people slowly changed into the idea of a more human and vulnerable person. And it is more important to note that the common people no longer needed the king as religious mediator for contact with the gods. As the hidden god became approachable for the common man, the exclusive position of the king as significant contact between the divine and the human world was lost. The time of the early 18th Dynasty is significant for its numerous cultic practices, regulating the spiritual exchange between men and deities, and a very special form of manifestation of the divine element in the contact of the divinity with the Egyptian king. The use of omnia, dreams and mainly oracles were favourite methods of presenting of the divinity, and his intentions concerning the relationship with the king symbolized a new kind of divine manifestation (Baines 1987, 94-97). The reports about the oracles of Amun-Re for Thutmose III and Hatshepsut are excellent examples of the demonstration of the divine will. The oracles served as tools for the legitimization and election of the Egyptian sovereigns reflecting the divine desire of the deities (Assmann 1987, 50-51). The early 19th Dynasty saw the beginning of many changes in politics, religion and culture. Numerous testimonies to the impact of the Personal Religion in the literature of Ancient Egypt emerged in the Ramesside era. The royal literature was also influenced by these changes and a very famous example is known as the Poem of Ramesses II. This Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty was in many ways a great role-model (Kitchen 2012, 3-4) as his successor Ramesses III copied his style in his royal self-presentation in literature, art and architecture (Kitchen 2012, 18-20). The Poem is a part of a historical inscription about the battle of Kadesh between Ramesses II and the Hittite king Muwatalli II in 1274 BC. After this military confrontation Ramesses II ordered a description of the battle in a monumental iconographic program in five temples in Egypt, reporting his victory over the Hittite army (Liesegang 2017, 69-75). The Poem is integrated in these inscriptions, where Ramesses II tells about his courageous battle against the mighty enemy. In a moment of greatest danger on the battlefield the Egyptian pharaoh offered a prayer to the god Amun-Re 58 D. Liesegang and called for salvation, reminding Amun-Re that a father does not ignore his son (Assmann 1983a, 160). The sudden arrival of his troops, the Na’arin (Rainey 1965, 21), saved the life of the pharaoh. This was a sign that Amun-Re had heard his call and answered promptly with this military support. This exposes one of the great facets of Personal Religion, namely that of the god as a generous and merciful one who cares about his people (Assmann 1983b, 175-231). Ramesses II expresses his knowledge of Amun-Re’s mercy and power, emphasizing it with the use of the word ‘gmj’, a special expression for the unique experience of realizing and understanding the might and the activity of the divinity. The meaning of ‘find (gmj)’ is here to understand as a deep gathering of a very special situation. ‘I found Amun more useful than millions of infantries, than thousands of chariots and then a ten thousand of brothers and children untitled with one heart. There is no work of many men but Amun is more useful of them.’ (Gardiner 1960, 10). The open and direct presentation of the Egyptian pharaoh in the moment of highest peril, searching for divine help in a situation of fear and loneliness, is a very special admission for an official royal text, and a great demonstration of numerous motifs of Personal Religion. The Poem of Ramesses II can be regarded as an excellent piece of Egyptian literature and as a unique example of personal religion in a royal inscription. J. Assmann calls Ramesses III the little-known theologist on the throne of the Pharaohs (Assmann 2005, 88) and he should be recognized too as a sovereign with great religious ambitions, and not exclusively as a king who obtained the might of the Egyptian empire through military success, political engagement and royal power. Assmann finds remarkable proof for the great religious efforts of Ramesses III and also a special literary heritage in the tradition of royal texts in a hymn, the first hymn of a King since the reign of Akhenaten (Assmann 2005, 63), where Ramesses spoke the language of Personal Religion to the divinity. His words are an appreciation of the greatness of god. But it is more important to note that the text contains several aspects of the symbolic language of Personal Religion. ‘Mighty are You, as Lord of the gods, as the Ram mysterious of faces, greatly renowned. “Hidden of Name”, whose image is concealed, whose nature is unknown since the beginning (1st occasion) you appearing from the Deep (Nun), The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion 59 you rising with sunbeams, so that You give light to every eye that was in darkness.’ (Kitchen 2008, 187) ‘Your complexion is the sunlight and your warmth is vital heat (?), all noble precious stones mingle (with/in) your body. Your limbs are breath to every nostril, people breathe by you, to live, the taste of you is the Nile-flood, people are anointed with [your] radiance, beneficial are you [...], Lord/all […], […] love.’ (Kitchen 2008, 187-188) This part of this special religious text of Ramesses III, which is installed in the Amun-Temple of Ramesses III in Karnak (Kitchen 2008, 185), bears some expressions which are typical of the image of Personal Religion. The Pharaoh speaks directly and openly to the divinity and emphasizes an important aspect of Amun-Re, namely his hidden nature. The picture of the hidden and secret deity is a characteristic idea of a god of Personal Religion, supplemented by the media of light, water and air as more aspects of the divinity. The inscriptions of many Pharaohs were characterized for ages by religious ideas and only served to present the Pharaoh as the son of the gods, moreover the chief-priest and for a long time the most important mediator between the deities and the people. Ancient Egyptian literature includes numerous texts where the Egyptian kings spoke about their close relationship with the gods and especially with Amun-Re, the king of the gods. They support their activities by constructing temples in honour of the divinity, bringing sacrifices and great donations for the gods and their temples, emphasizing their special position as living son of Amun-Re and selected sovereign of Egypt. Several predecessors of Ramesses III used an exquisite and intensive religious language for demonstrating their nearness to Amun-Re, one excellent example being the aforementioned Poem of Ramesses II. The royal literature of Ramesses III, however, increases these motifs in a special way. The Great Harris Papyrus I presents many lists of benefactions for the gods and series of speeches of Ramesses III to the gods (Haring 1997, 156-161). They also belong too to the royal literature of the reign of Ramesses III, who created in his inscriptions the image of a pious king, who submits himself to the will and the decisions of the gods. 60 D. Liesegang ‘I am your son. I came forth from you; you assigned me to be King while I was (yet) in the egg, while no other hand was with me except your(s). I rely on your mighty utterance, and I am filled with your counsels, in performing for you with loving heart.’ (Kitchen 2008, 202). Ramesses III shows himself as the selected son of Amun-Re who had been king since his formation in the womb. This is a well-known topic of royal self-presentation, known as Königsnovelle, and was an importa nt aspect for the self-presentation of every Egyptian sovereign and even a part of the royal legitimation (Hermann 1938). This is important because Ramesses III and his royal family were in an extremely uncertain political position as a new dynasty, which was founded by Pharaoh Setnakhte, the father of Ramesses III (Grandet 1993, 40-45). The rise of the 20th Dynasty is connected with a total absence of historical evidence about Setnakhte and his background and has been described in the few written sources of his reign as the rise of a new glorious sovereign, after an intriguing transitional period in Egypt (Kitchen 2012, 1-3). Ramesses III needed the support of important groups in Egyptian society, and particularly that of the priests of Amun-Re, to prove and support his royal might. He gave many donations and gifts to the temples and received the support of the priesthood of Amun-Re, which increases the official might and will of Amun-Re on the decisions and acts of the Pharaoh. And the main point here is the statement that the Pharaoh relies on the decisions and the will of the god. He strives to perform the god’s expectations with a ‘loving heart’, which is also an expression of Personal Religion, showing intense feelings and gratitude of the worshipper for the divinity. The idea of highest gratitude and luck to submit under the divine will is an aspect of Personal Religion, which can be found in the prayers of the common people and the inscriptions of Ramesses III (Assmann 1990, 262). For a long time, the Egyptian Pharaoh was an active and powerful ruler who handled matters by his own decisions, but now the will of the gods dominates the course of history. The king recognizes the god as the Lord of conduct and submits himself to the divine will. ‘You set a lifespan, You fix Destiny, Fate and Fortune are governed by Your decree. There is no god who is your equal, but Your alone are the Maker, of whatever exists.’ (Assmann 1975, 414-415). The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion 61 The inscriptions of the time of Ramesses III are best-known for their historical reports and descriptions of his wars. The texts of his reign tell about his wars against the Sea People and describe his powerful appearance as a warrior king in the tradition of Thutmose III or Sety I. The temples show in monumental images the Pharaoh smiting the enemies and bringing sacrifices to the gods in the classical tradition of the royal self-presentation of an Egyptian pharaoh (Pls. 1-2). It is important to note, however, that the warlike texts use a very poetic and metaphorical language, which include the idea of text and image in one imagination. Ramesses III appears as a fiery star, a powerful bull, or a dangerous crocodile, and the inscriptions create an image of a mighty and invincible king (Liesegang 2008,79). The royal inscriptions of Ramesses III also possess a unique characteristic of intense impressions and a wish to show the Pharaoh in an extraordinary manifestation. The war inscriptions serve the tradition of royal propaganda and emphasize the image of the powerful sovereign and warrior-king (Liesegang 2012, 200-207). The religious texts of Ramesses III show a very religious king, who acts in a pious and modest way for his divine father Amun-Re, at all times aware of the privilege of being the son of the god Amun-Re and the Pharaoh of Egypt. The relationship of Ramesses III and Amun-Re obviously stands under the sign of the religious phenomenon of Personal Religion and the texts show the might and the grace of the divine ruler and his royal son, Ramesses. All decisions come now from Amun-Re, and Ramesses III is inspired by the wish to serve the god and to submit himself under the divine will of Amun-Re. Conclusions Ramesses III was the last significant Pharaoh in Egyptian history and the cultural heritage of his reign presents a time of historical changes in Egyptian society, especially in the political and religious spheres. The inscriptions of Ramesses III contain motifs of Personal Religion and emphasize the absolute power of Amun-Re. The god orders the world and the fate of the people according to his will (Assmann 1990, 262). In the long tradition of the royal self-presentation in Ancient Egypt it was an essential part of the ideological program, that the Pharaoh appears in the cultic world in a serious attitude as the living son and representative of the gods. 62 D. Liesegang The texts of the time of Ramesses III present a new dimension of intensive religious presence of the sovereign, which is extraordinary in the history of the royal literature of Ancient Egypt. The activities of the Pharaoh in the political and cultic world of the Ramesside age were influenced by the development of new ideas in the Egyptian society, which constructed a new model of relationship between the people and the deities. The position and the actions by the king are more and more dependent on the divine will of the gods, who often spoke through oracles. This media of divine communication made the role of the priests and the divine cults more powerful and the role of the king less mighty. The pharaoh, who was in the royal ideology of Ancient Egypt the son of the gods and their highest priest on earth, during the Ramesside era lost a great part of his might. The idea of Personal Religion includes direct contact between the gods and the worshippers, who longer needed a mediator. The Pharaoh was still the son of the god, but now by praying to the gods he was on the same level as the common people. He was, however, still seen as the son of the gods and not as a common human. The king depends more and more on the support of the priests to hold his official cultic image and position. To understand the actions of Ramesses III it is important to look at the history of his royal family. Ramesses III was the son of Sethnakhte, the founder of the 20th Dynasty (Kitchen 2012, 2-3). No detailed information exists about the family and personal background of Setnakhte. The famous stela of Elephantine is one of the few historical sources about this king, who has been described as the saviour of Egypt following a period of political chaos. Sethnakhte and his successors claimed their legitimacy on the basis of the reconstruction of the Egyptian empire after a time of chaos and corruption (Grandet 1993, 40-45). This aspect was similar to the legitimization of the Pharaohs of the famous 19th Dynasty, who were the political role-models for the kings of the 20th Dynasty. Ramesses III copied, for example, the royal iconographic program from Ramesses II (Kitchen 2012, 2-4). The Vezir Hori, who served until the 11th year during the reign of Ramesses III, was the grandson of Khaemwaset, a son of Ramesses II (Helck 1980, 1). The attempt to connect the newly founded 20th Dynasty with the 19th reveals the pressure the new kings were under to confirm their legitimacy as rulers and official successors of the famous Ramesside dynasty. The dependence on the support of the priests and the military was maybe even a cause of great religious deeds, especially to secure donations to the cults and temples. This was followed by the wealth and the might of the religious class The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion 63 and caused economic imbalances, which influenced the situation of the royal court and the Egyptian society in the 20th Dynasty (Eyre 2012, 139). Gifts to the temples and the religious presentation of Ramesses III were surely the serious expression of a deeply religious impression and nearness to the deities. But they were also a sign of gratitude for the legitimation of Ramesses III through Amun-Re and the support of the priesthood to recognize the reign of his dynasty. References Assmann J. 1975. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. Zürich, München. Assmann J. 1983a. Re und Amun. Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.–20. Dynastie. Freiburg, Schweiz. Assmann J. 1983b. Krieg und Frieden im Alten Ägypten: Ramses II. und die Schlacht von Kadesch. Mannheimer Forum 83/84, 175–231. Assmann J. 1987. Die Zeit Hatschepsuts und Thutmosis III. in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht. In A. Eggebrecht (ed.) Ägyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht, 47–55. Mainz. Assmann J. 1990. Ma‘at. Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten. München. Assmann J. 2005. Theologie und Weisheit im alten Ägypten. München. Baines J. 1987. Practical religion and piety. JEA 73, 79–98, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1177/030751338707300108. Breasted J. H. 1912. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. Philadelphia. Eyre C. J. 2012. Society, economy, and administrative process in late Ramesside Egypt. In E. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.), Ramesses III: The Life and Times of Egypt’s Last Hero, 101–150. Ann Arbor, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2254254. Faulkner R. O. 1973. The teaching of Merikare. In W. K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 180–192. New Haven, London. Goelet O. Jr. 2012. The literary environment of the age of Ramesses III. In E. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.), Ramesses III The Life and Times of Egypt’s Last Hero, 305–403. Ann Arbor, [on-line] https://doi.org/ 10.3998/mpub.2254254. 64 D. Liesegang Haring B. J. J. 1997. Divine Households. Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes. (Egyptologische Uitgaven, 12). Leiden. Helck W. 1980. Maat. In W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds.), LÄ 3 (1), 1110–1119. Wiesbaden. Hermann A. 1938. Die ägyptische Königsnovelle. (LÄS 10). Glückstadt, Hamburg. Gardiner A. 1960. The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford. Grandet P. 1993. Ramsès III. Histoire d’un règne. Paris. Kitchen K. A. 2008. The Ramesside Inscriptions V. Setnakht, Ramesses III and Contemporaries. Translations. Oxford. Kitchen K. A. 2012. Ramesses III and the Ramesside Period. In E. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.), Ramesses III The Life and Times of Egypt’s Last Hero, 1–26. Ann Arbor, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub. 2254254. Lichtheim M. 1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings, vol. III: The Late Period. Berkeley. Liesegang D. 2008. ‘Visual Images’. Ein königliches Ritual in versprachlichten Bildern. In B. Rothöhler and A. Manisali (Hrsg), Mythos und Ritual. Festschrift für Jan Assmann zum 70. Geburtstag, 77–82. Berlin. Liesegang D. 2012. The Power of Image. In G. A. Belova and S. V. Ivanov (eds.), Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Moscow, 29 September – 2 October 2009, 200–207. Moscow. Liesegang D. 2017. Die Schlacht von Kadesch – zwischen historischer Realität und Königspropaganda. Antike Welt 3, 69–75. Luiselli M. 2004. Der Amun-Re Hymnus des P. Boulaq 17 (P. Kairo CG 58038). (KÄT 14). Wiesbaden. Morenz S. 1992. Egyptian Religion. New York. O’Connor D. 2012. The mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. In E. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.), Ramesses III The Life and Times of Egypt’s Last Hero, 209–270. Ann Arbor, [on-line] https://doi. org/10.3998/mpub.2254254. Rainey A. F., 1965. The military personnel of Ugarit. JNES 24, 21. Diana Liesegang c/o University of Heidelberg [email protected] The reign of Ramesses III – under the influence of personal religion PLATE 1 Pl. 1: 1 – Ramesses III smiting the enemies in front of Amun-Re, Temple of Medinet Habu, First Pylon. Photo by the author. Pl. 1: 2 – Ramesses III taking part in festivals for the gods, Temple of Medinet Habu, Courtyard. Photo by the author. PLATE 2 D. Liesegang Pl. 2 – Ramesses III presenting captives in front of Amun-Re, Temple of Medinet Habu, Portico of Courtyard. Photo by the author. S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Maciej Wacławik Kraków A FEW PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE CYPRIOT SCULPTURES KNOWN AS TEMPLE-BOYS Abstract: Although scholars have pored over them for many years, there are still more questions than answers concerning the temple-boy figurines. Aside from canonical presentations, many figurines are considered as belonging to the temple-boy category, even though they do not possess features compatible with it. Symbolic analysis of the manner of their presentation, as well as animals, fruits and other objects held by the boys, shifts the direction of influence from Phoenicia to Egypt, also raising the age of the presented boys to two to three years old. Finally, they might be interpreted as votive gifts to ensure protection and well-being for Cypriot heirs to the throne. Keywords: Temple-boy figurine, Hellenistic Cyprus Art, Symbols of death and life, Egyptian influence, Jagiellonian University Antiquity Collection Children of ancient times have been an object of study since the very beginning of the human and social sciences. However, this research has become more intense in the last few decades, in the period of social change that has brought awareness that children are human beings with the same natural rights as adults. Throughout the history of art some of the most popular themes have been studies of the methods of presentation of children in particular times. Research into the Cypriot sculptures known as temple-boys fits perfectly with this branch of studies. These sculptures are made of clay and limestone – materials very popular on Cyprus in figural art, especially because of their local availability. DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.04 68 M. Wacławik They are schematically presenting small boys, sitting in an erect frontal pose, with the left leg bent flat on the ground close to the front of the body and the right leg drawn-up to the body. The centre of mass is shifted onto the right hand. The depicted persons are usually wearing a tunic with sleeves, rolled up to expose the genitals and wearing a necklace with pendants in the shape of a bearded head or the letter T, mostly interpreted as a phallus (Daszewski and Sztetyłło 1989, 107). On the wrists and ankles they have very massive bracelets. One very important element of their iconography is the objects held in the left hand: birds, small animals, fruits, flowers, and objects that are unidentifiable due to the state of preservation. They are sometimes presented holding a combination of these, e.g. fruit in one hand and a bird in the other. Their backs are flat and unmodeled which might suggest that they were made to be seen from the front. This might indicate their original location to be close to a wall or in a niche. Studies on the temple-boys were taken up by A. Westholm (1955), T. Hadzisteliou-Price (1969), W. A. Daszewski and Z. Sztetyłło (1989), and A. Marczewska (1998), who considered their provenances and dating, and interpretations of their function. The most important studies on this subject were done by C. Beer, who also published a catalogue of 301 templeboy figurines and 13 similar objects (1994). In recent decades it was also taken up by T. Petit (2007), C. Baurain (2008; 2011), and S. G. Caneva and A. Delli Pizzi (2014), who are drawing more attention to the sociologial and cultural aspects of the sculptures. Studying the temple-boys phenomenon hits upon a lack of logic and research consequences. Despite the specific canon defining their belonging to the category or not, there is an exception to each of the features presented above, which in consequence undermines the canon itself. As temple-boys are classified as sitting, standing, or walking figurines, there are girls next to the boys as well. Only around 30% of them have exposed genitals (Beer 1987, 21; Caneva and Delli Pizzi 2014, 499). In fact, as is in the case of objects from the collection of the Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology (see below), fragments of sculptures that have any distinctive features of that group were also classified as belonging to it. Some theories, like those relating temple-boys to the child forms of gods like Adonis, Eros or Eshmun, have been debated and rejected because of a lack of distinctive, divine features (e.g. Marczewska 1998, 112). The age of the depicted children is also problematic. Marczewska (1998, 112) suggests that they should be around the age of one year, and other researchers (de Ridder 1908, 57; Daszewski and Sztetyłło 1989, 110) A few preliminary remarks on the Cypriot sculptures... 69 set the age limit a little higher, as less than two years old. Both of these hypotheses seem to be incorrect because of the inability of such a young child to take the described position of the body. It is physically impossible due to the development of human beings at this stage to have such erect posture or a drawn-up leg or to shift the centre of mass onto one hand. Similarly, such massive jewellery as the schematically presented necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings or a wreath on the head of such a young child could only cause injuries and deformities of the cervical spine. Taking into account the biological condition of child development, it should be assumed that the portrayed boys were no younger than two to three years old.1 Raising this age limit allows us to reject Marczewska’s (1998, 110) theory that the shape of the skulls is flattened because they are still not fully formed. It is possible to assume that this method of presentation is the result of low skill levels of the Cypriot artists, who could not present children in a proper way, as this took place later in Medieval art, when children were depicted as miniaturised adults. On the other hand, skull deformations were very popular as an artistic form in Egypt during the Amarna Period. However, it is not very relevant to relate such fairly chronologically distant manners to each other. Estimating the child’s age as around three years old allows to agree with Daszewski and Sztetyłło (1989, 113), in that it is not justified to interpret them as servants of the temple or as sacrificers, which will be discussed below. Similarly, their role as sacred prostitutes suggested by E. Sjöqvist (1955, 46) or having been dedicated by their parents to serve in this purpose (Beer 1987, 23; Marczewska 1998, 112), would, because of their young age, be very cruel and inhumane, as Beer (1987, 23) has also emphasized. Another of Beer’s theories (1987, 23; 1991), that the exposed genitals are somehow related to circumcision, should be revised. It is based on the assumption, having no evidence in the material, that the temple-boys figurines present young Phoenicians. Caneva and Delli Pizzi’s (2014, 501) most recent theory actually indicates the opposite direction of influence, from Cyprus to the Phoenician coast. As well, the analysis of photos published by Beer (1994) allows us to state that there is no evidence of this practice visible on the sculpture. Similarly, the hypothesis about inclusion into the social community following circumcision should be rejected. More reasonable would be the southern roots of the gesture of uncovering the genitals, especially when looking closer at details like the eyes, which The author is deeply indebted to K. Matysek and J. Sowul, MD for consultation in the field of child development. 1 70 M. Wacławik indicate an Egyptian influence. The eyes are in many cases almond-shaped, as they are in many Egyptian presentations. However, sometimes it is in the shape of the Eye of Horus (e.g. Beer 1994, 44, cat. no. 138), a very important and powerful Egyptian protective amulet, similar to the phallic pendant hanging from a necklace on the chest. The corpus of limestone amulets, very similar in shape to those presented on the temple-boys figurines, excavated on Geronisos confirmed Eastern influences with Egypt playing a particular role (Connelly 2007; Caneva an Delli Pizzi 2014, 502). Also from Egypt is known the celebration related to Apis, when women uncovered their genitals to ensure their own fertility (Manniche 1988, 38). The uncovering of the genitals is also known from Egyptian myth. Hathor, probably to exhilarate the heart of Ra or to take control over him, showed him her vulva (Manniche 2001, 274). It seems that boy figurines with uncovered genitals were sacrificed in the sanctuaries to ensure happiness, prosperity and fertility in the upcoming years to those on whose behalf they were dedicated. Important is also the dedication of the sanctuary. It was the cult places of Aphrodite (or another Great Goddess), Apollo – solar god, divine healer and perpetrator of sudden death, mentioned in an inscription preserved on a few of the figurines (e.g. Beer 1994, 57, cat. no. 190), as well as Melqart – Heracles (Daszewski and Sztetyłło 1989, 111). Also very interesting is the temple-boy from the Louvre (Beer 1994, 64, cat. no. 212) when the relation with Apollo is considered. Above the right ankle there is the head of a reptile, probably a fragment of a bracelet in the shape of a snake – an ancient chthonic symbol of fertility, disease and sudden death (Cirlot 1971, 285), Apollo’s antagonist at the foot of Mount Parnassus (Schmidt 2006, 279). A similar, sexual interpretation can be assumed based on analysis of the objects held by the boys. It seems that they should not be interpreted as sacrifices, as Daszewski and Sztetyłło (1989, 113) suggested. The proper dynamic gesture for sacrifice is missing. Instead of presenting gifts to the deity, or passing it on their way, the boys cling it to themselves, as if they are trying to emphasize the unity between ‘sacrificer’ and his ‘sacrifice’. The goose was for the ancients a symbol of death and descent into the abyss (Cirlot 1971, 120), while the dove symbolised fertility (Forstner OSB 1990, 228). Both birds were related to the cult of the Great Goddess. Another bird held by the boys is a rooster, which, similarly to the hare, a bunch of grapes, and pomegranates, is a symbol of fertility (Cirlot 1971, 51, 122, 139, 260; Forstner OSB 1990, 164, 180, 233, 310). Another interesting fact is that the boys held birds’ wings (like e.g. Beer 1994, 47, cat. no. 152). A few preliminary remarks on the Cypriot sculptures... 71 This symbolic gesture of the right hand – an ancient symbol of power and ability to act – might express the desire to strengthen the sexual potency of the donors and, consequently, the life force of those in whose names they were offered. Especially important in this case is the rooster – a symbol of reproductive power and belligerence as well as the guardian of the dawn, related to solar deities and indirectly also with the Great Goddess, who as a celestial body was linked to the planet Venus – the Morning star, stellae maris, which safely led sailors to their destination (Kowalski 1987, 84). In Egyptian culture those two aspects – reproductive power and belligerence – were particularly related to the ideology of the pharaoh (Manniche 1988, 30). Thus, one possible interpretation is that the temple-boys figurines probably represent Cypriot monarchical heirs to the throne as children. The dating of the figurines, from the Cypro-Classical Period to the first half of the Hellenistic Period (Marczewska 1998, 110), as well as the amount of jewellery depicted on the boys, seem to confirm this hypothesis. Interestingly, a similar possibility was proposed in the case of the ‘temple-boys’ from Eshmun sanctuary from Bostan esh-Sheik near Sidon, which are interpreted as an expression of the elite and the royal family (Caneva and Delli Pizzi 2014, 499-500). If the hypothesis of circumcision is not rejected, it is possible to agree with Marczewska (1998, 112) that the sculptures represent boys who did not live just to be subjected to that ritual and, consequently, to the inclusion of the local community. That might be why sculptures were found in separated areas like sanctuaries or tombs. This theory can be confirmed by the fruits and animals held by the boys. Along with the sexual and fertile aspects, they are also eschatological, related to death and the Underworld. Against Marczewska’s theory are the amulets in the shape of the head of Bes, being a part of the boys’ necklaces (Petit 2007). This Egyptian god was a protector of women in childbirth and children from birth up to the age of majority (Wilkinson 2003, 102). Therefore, it seems pointless to present it as the sculpture of a dead child. The amulets in the shape of the head of Bes, similar to the Eye of Horus, were used to protect the living rather than the dead. In this case Harpocrates – the child form of Horus, very popular among Greeks and Romans – is very important. The above-mentioned fact that bird sacrifices are held by the wings might be a symbol of capture, breaking the power of the animal and overcoming it. In consequence, it could symbolise the defeat of death. Because of this, the sculptures might be interpreted as an offering to the gods imploring for the child’s health or as a votive after receiving it (Caneva and Delli Pizzi 2014, 515). 72 M. Wacławik The first of these possibilities seems to be more compatible with other symbols presented on the figurines. Daszewski and Sztetyłło’s (1989, 115) interpretation, relating the mentioned symbols and phallic pendants with the cult of a particular deity – probably Aphrodite or the ‘Paphian Goddess’ – seems to be unconvincing because of their common and universal use. The above-mentioned sculptures from the collection of the Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology (inv. no. 10.507 and 10.517) are far too fragmented to agree with Z. Kapera (1976, 76; 1985), Marczewska’s (1988, 114-116) and Śliwa (2007) assertion that they should be classified as of the temple-boy type, especially when their provenance is uncertain. Figurine 10.507 (Pl. 1: 1) is a triangular head of a young person with a wide nose and short curly hair. The surface is quite worn so that some details like the shapes of the mouth and nostrils cannot be precisely defined. Figurine 10.517 (Pl. 1: 2) is the head and a fragment of the left shoulder of a young boy. The face is a little bit flattened, with almond-shaped eyes and wide nose, but in this case it more looks like the effect of sculpture’s skills than his intention. The hair is short and adheres to the head, like a bonnet. They actually could be fragments of any other figurine styles representing children. What is interesting is that Kapera interpreted only the second sculpture as a temple-boy (inv. no. 10.517). The other he described as a male head with Negroid features. In both cases the preserved fragments of the heads have features like wide nostrils and hairstyles that allow them to be excluded from the group of temple-boys and classified in a different category. To summarise, it can be stated that the temple-boys might present heirs of Cypriot thrones dedicated to the Great Goddess as a sacrifice, asking for care, health and wellness, or as a votive for salvation from disease. Earlier hypothesises relating them with circumcision or sacred prostitution seem to have no evidence in the historical or archaeological sources. Nevertheless, this issue still needs further research, which might help in our understanding of most of the problems raised above. A few preliminary remarks on the Cypriot sculptures... 73 References Baurain C. 2008. Le come–back d’Évagoras de Salamine et l’inter-prétation des temple boys chypriotes. In J. Elayi (ed.), La Transeu-phratène à l’époque perse: frontières et courants d‘échanges culturels (Paris, 22–24 mars 2007). Actes du VIIe colloque international Transeuphratène, (Transeuphratène 37), 37–22. Paris. Baurain C. 2011. La contribution des Teucrides aux cultes royaux de l’époque hellénistique. In P. P. Iossif, A. J. Chankowski, C. C. Lorber (eds.), More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens (November 1–2, 2007), (Studia Hellenistica 51), 121–155. Leuven. Beer C. 1987. Comparative Votive Religion. The Evidence of Children in Cyprus, Greece and Etruria. In T. Linders, G. Nordquist (eds.), Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985. (Boreas 15), 21–29. Uppsala. Beer C. 1991. Cultes chypriotes et éléments Phéniciens? In E. Acquaro (ed.), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma, 9–14 novembre 1987, 357–365. Roma. Beer C. 1994. Temple-boys. A Study of Cypriote Votive Sculpture, Pt. 1: Catalogue. Jonsered. Caneva S. G. and Delli Pizzi A. 2014. Classical and Hellenistic Statuettes of the So-Called “Temple Boys”: A Religious and Social Reappraisal. In C. Terranova (ed.), La presenza dei bambini nelle religioni del Mediterraneo antico. La vita e la morte, i rituali e i culti tra archeologia, antropologia e storia delle religioni, 495–521. Roma, [on-line] http://hdl.handle.net/2268/164486. Cirlot J. E. 1971. A Dictionary of Symbols. London. Connelly J. B. 2007. Ptolemaic Sunset: Boys’ Rites of Passage on Late Hellenistic Geronisos. In P. Flourentzos (ed.), Proceedings of the Inter-national Archaeological Conference: From Evagoras I to the Ptolemies. The Transition from the Classical to the Hellenistic Period in Cyprus (Nicosia, 29–30 November 2002), 35–51. Nicosia. Daszewski W. A. and Sztetyłło Z. 1989. Przedstawienia „Temple-boys” w plastyce figuralnej Cypru. Studia i Materiały Archeologiczne 7, 107–116. de Ridder A. 1908. Collection de Clercq, vol. 5: Les antiquités chypriotes. Paris. 74 M. Wacławik Forstner D. 1990. Świat symboliki chrześcijańskiej. Warszawa. Hadzisteliou-Price T. 1969. The Type of the Crouching Child and the ‘Temple Boys’. BSA 64, 95–111, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0068245400014532. Kapera Z. J. 1976. Zabytki cypryjskie. In M. L. Bernhard (ed.), Zabytki archeologiczne Zakładu Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 65–97. Warszawa, Kraków. Kapera Z. J. 1985. Die Sammlung von Stanisław Larysz Niedzielski. In: E. Kluwe and J. Śliwa (eds.), Zur Geschichte der klassischen Archäologie Jena – Kraków, 82–88. Jena. Kowalski J. 1987. Dramat a kult. Warszawa. Manniche L. 1988. Liebe und Sexualität im alten Ägypten. Zürich, München. Manniche L. 2001. Sexuality. In D. B. Redford (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 274–277. London, [on-line] https:/doi.org/10.1093/ acref/9780195102345.001.0001. Marczewska A. 1998. Uwagi na temat cypryjskich przedstawień „templeboys”. In F. Kiryk, M. Wilczyński and J. Ciecieląg (eds.), Amicorum Dona. Studia dedykowane Profesorowi Stefanowi Skowronkowi w sie-demdziesięciolecie urodzin, 107–118. Kraków. Petit T. 2007. La course agenouillée de l‘Héraclès cypriote. Ktèma. Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome Antiques 32, 73–83. Schmidt J. 2006. Słownik mitologii greckiej i rzymskiej. Katowice. Sjöqvist E. 1955. A Cypriot Temple Attendant. AJA 59, 45–47. Śliwa J. 2007. Stanisław Larysz-Niedzielski (1853–1933). O śledziejo-wickiej kolekcji starożytności raz jeszcze. In J. Śliwa (ed.), Egipt, Grecja, Italia... Zabytki starożytne z dawnej kolekcji Gabinetu Archeologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 102–110. Kraków. Westholm A. 1955. The Cypriote “Temple-Boys”. OpAth 2, 75–77. Wilkinson R. H. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London. Maciej Wacławik Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University in Kraków [email protected] A few preliminary remarks on the Cypriot sculptures... PLATE 1 Pl. 1: 1 – The so-called ‘Temple-boy’ figurine with Negroid features from the collections of the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University (inv. no. 10.507, photo by author) Pl. 1: 2 – The so-called ‘Temple-boy’ figurine from the collections of the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University (inv. no. 10.517, photo by author) S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Agata Kubala Wroclaw A FAIENCE ARYBALLOS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM AT WROCLAW Abstract: In the collection of the University Museum of Wroclaw is a spherical faience aryballos of unknown provenance. It belongs to a group of vessels which enjoyed widespread popularity over a vast area of the Mediterranean in the 6th century BC. The analysis clearly shows that the spherical faience aryballos at the University Museum of Wroclaw should be classified within section 3 of V. Webb’s classification, that containing the most common and crudest type of faience aryballos. Aryballoi classified within this section were made, judging from their distribution, partly or mainly at Naukratis and they belong in date to the second part of the 6th century. It is likely that the Wroclaw aryballos is the product of an Egyptian workshop, perhaps of that located at Naukratis. An Eastern Greek workshop cannot be ruled out either. Keywords: Wroclaw aryballos; faience ware; spherical aryballoi; University Museum of Wroclaw Introduction In Poland there are not many preserved objects of ancient art, the more valuable are therefore those that have survived the turmoil of the Second World War and are at present part of the Polish cultural national heritage. Among them are specimens of high artistic quality as well DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.05 78 A. Kubala as objects betraying oversimplified modelling designed for mass-production. A spherical faience aryballos, inv. no. UW-28, deposited in the University Museum of Wroclaw, which is the subject of this article, belongs to the latter category.1 What makes it worth publishing is the fact that it has not yet been registered in catalogues of ancient Greek ceramics from Polish collections, as is the case of another vessel of this type in Polish museum collections of ancient art, now in Krakow (cf. below). The aim of the article is therefore to provide the essential basic material concerning this still unknown faience vessel for further study of faience objects. The provenance of the discussed vessel is unknown. We have no information concerning either the place where the aryballos was found or acquired, nor of the circumstances surrounding its acquisition. Even the exact time of its arrival to Wroclaw and its original location are not known. However, there are some indications that allow us to draw some assumptions. The vessel in question has no museum inventory number written on its surface and it bears no traces of any museum label once glued to its surface. It is then possible that it belonged to a private collection, one of many existing in Wroclaw and in Lower Silesia before World War II. It could also be a part of one of two large museum collections of ancient art known to have existed in Wroclaw before World War II.2 It is likely that the vessel in question was a part of the collection of the Archaeological Museum at the University of Breslau. Objects kept in this museum have not been assigned inventory numbers.3 If that is the case, the aryballos arrived at this museum not earlier than 1862. In this year the then Kӧnigliches Museum für Kunst und Alterthum was transferred into the Archaeological Museum at the University of Breslau (Demidziuk 2010, 207). However, the preserved inventory of the collection (Rossbach 1877) does not record such an object. At this stage of research, the findspot and the primary place of storage of the Wroclaw aryballos remains indefinite. During the post-war turmoil, most of the antiquities from both of the abovementioned collections went missing. Immediately after the war The discussed aryballos as well as other ancient objects deposited in the University Museum at Wroclaw are the property of the University of Wroclaw Institute of History. 2 One of them was a collection of the Museum Schlesischer Alterthümer. The second one was kept in the Kӧnigliches Museum für Kunst und Alterthum, transformed in 1862 into the Archeological Museum at the University of Breslau, now known as the University Museum at Wroclaw. It should be noted that the discussed vessel was not brought to Wroclaw after World War II. 3 I am very grateful to Mr. Krzysztof Demidziuk from the Archaeological Museum of Wroclaw for his help in finding this information. 1 A faience aryballos in the collection... 79 the quantity of remaining ancient objects, mainly glassware and ceramics, was gathered in a building at 37 Szewska Street, where the University Departments of Classical Archaeology, Prehistory and Art History were then housed (Gębczak 1959, 180). After the liquidation of the Department of Mediterranean Archaeology at the University of Wroclaw in 1967 (Floryan 1970, 71) some of these antiquities, among them the discussed vessel, became the property of the Wroclaw University Institute of History. In 2016 they were transferred to the Wroclaw University Museum as deposits. The vessel The vessel in question is made of frit of bright yellow colour. According to R. M. Cook and P. Dupont (1998, 140) what is commonly called ‘faience’ is in fact a glazed frit consisting of natron and silica with a little addition of clay as a binding agent. Its height is 7.7cm and its diameter is 7cm. The diameter of the mouth is 4.5cm. It consists of a wide, flaring mouth with a concave upper surface and high edge, short and narrow neck, and a somewhat irregular spherical body, slightly flattened below the handle. The body is decorated with incised intersecting sets of parallel lines (Pl. 1: 1). The rounded bottom of the vessel bears no decoration. A broad vertical handle is attached to the edge of the mouth and the shoulder of the vessel. The orifice is very narrow (it has a diameter of about 1cm) and is situated not in the middle of the mouth, but slightly shifted. On the mouth, in the upper part of the shoulder and on the handle, remains of greenish-blue glaze are visible. It is possible that in its original state, the whole vessel had been covered with such a coating. On the shoulders a pattern of six tongue-shaped blobs of brown colour is painted. The interior of the discussed aryballos shows clearly visible longitudinal impressions. They were very easy to notice, since the vessel had been discovered broken into several pieces. These impressions are most probably traces of wound stems of grass or reed stalks used in the process of manufacturing the vessel (cf. below). The category of faience spherical aryballoi, which the Wroclaw vessel belongs to, represents the final phase of production of Archaic East Greek faience. They display both East Greek and Egyptian influences that may indicate the existence of workshops producing this particular type of vessel not only in East Greece but also in Egypt. Establishing of the production in Egypt would be closely linked contacts between the Greeks and Saite Egypt (Webb 2016, 10). An important faience production centre in this 80 A. Kubala country was most probably Naukratis, the Greek trading port in the Egyptian Nile Delta, inhabited by both Egyptians and Greeks (Meek et al. 2016, 95). According to V. Webb (1978, 7; 1987, 72) the distribution of the finer type of spherical aryballoi was centred on Rhodes, while that of the coarser examples was wider, and they were widespread over the entire Mediterranean and their distribution reflected the expansion of Greek colonial and trade activity. Findplaces of the provenanced examples of both types Webb lists in her publication devoted to archaic Greek faience products (1978, 108ff.) contains sites on Rhodes, Samos (see also Webb 2016, 12, n. 79), Paros, Cyprus and Greek colonies in Asia Minor and Italy. Some isolated examples from mainland Greece are also known as findings from Athens (Blinkenberg and Johansen 1928, pl. 80: 2, 12) and Olympia (Webb 1978, 121, no. 809) show. The faience spherical aryballoi The small capacity and elaborate form of the spherical aryballoi, and their broad, slightly concave mouths made them very convenient containers for scented oil or unguent used for anointing the skin in Greek gymnasia, private baths, banquets and in particular, funerary ritual (Webb 2013-2015, 2). Provenanced vessels have been found mainly in burials as findings from Samos (Webb 2016, 46), Camirus (Webb 1978, 120, nos. 780782) and Ampurias (Webb 1978, 121, no. 818) show. Other findspots are sanctuary deposits. In such a context spherical aryballoi have been found in for instance Lindos (Webb 1978, 110, no. 717, 111, no. 719), Ialysus (Webb 1978, 110, no. 718), and Kourion–Episkopi (Webb 1978, 111, no. 722). Archaeological evidence indicates that faience aryballoi of spherical shape started to be produced towards the end of the 7th century BC,4 and their production lasted for over one hundred years, terminating in general at the end of the 6th century BC. Webb (2016, 10) links the end of the production of the faience objects with the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 BC. According to Cook and Dupont (1998, 140) spherical aryballoi did not appear earlier than the second quarter of the 6th century and by 500 BC, the industry had ceased. These dates consequently determine the general chronological framework for the discussed object. One of the earliest examples of this type was found in a grave 472 at Syracuse dated to the end of the third quarter of the 7th century BC (Hencken 1958, 263, Pl. 63, fig. 17b). 4 A faience aryballos in the collection... 81 Faience spherical aryballoi are typologically dependent on ceramic Corinthian round aryballoi, closely reproducing the broad and concave mouth of these ceramic vessels (Payne 1931, 287, fig. 123). However, the faience aryballoi do not have painted figural decoration. Instead, one may observe a variety of patterns in relief or incision using interlocking diamonds or lozenges. This type of decoration of the body, supplemented by a “tongue” pattern incised on the shoulder and a rosette or star modelled on the base recalls the fruit-shaped form of parallel East Greek aryballoi made of clay (Webb 1987, 72). It was chosen to provide a firm holding surface when the vase was used as Webb (1978, 108) suggests. The last and crudest type of aryballoi replaces the carefully modelled decoration of the body with shallowly incised cross-hatching. The ‘tongue’ pattern on the shoulder is not incised but painted in dark brown and made carelessly, and separate ‘tongues’ rather resemble dabs of dark glaze. Such a schematic and somewhat careless decoration of the body and shoulder is the case of the vessel under discussion (Pls. 1: 1-2), which makes for a good indication of time and place of its production, as it will be shown below. Discussion We know of numerous spherical faience aryballoi which are very much like the Wroclaw example in shape and with lozenge or cruder, cross-hatching patterns on their bodies, and some of them will be cited here as analogies. The discussed vessel demonstrates apparent similarity to a spherical aryballos in the Antikensammlung in Basel, inv. no. BS 1921.317, made of white faience. The aryballos is dated to the first half of the 6th century BC and designated to be the product of a Rhodian workshop with close relations with Egypt (Descoeudres 1981, 61, pl. 19). The mouth and a handle of the vessel are covered with greenish-blue glaze. As indicated above, the mouth and the handle of the vessel in question bear remains of a glaze of the same colour (see also Pl. 1: 1). Also apparently similar are the way of making the cross-hatching pattern decorating the body, and the shape of the mouth. However, some differences may also be pointed out, particularly in the shape of the body of the Basel aryballos, which is more regular, and of the shoulders, which are somewhat flattened. The flaring mouth of the Basel aryballos is also significantly broader than the same element of the Wroclaw aryballos. 82 A. Kubala Clear similarities are also observable between the Wroclaw aryballos and a vessel of the same type from the Jagiellonian University Museum at Krakow, inv. no. 141 (1108, 158), maintained to be an East Greek product dated to 575-550 BC (Papuci-Władyka 2012, 23-24, pl. 1). The common elements are the shape of body and handle, as well as the kind of decorative pattern. The main observable difference concerns the shape of the mouth, which in the Krakow example is in the form of a broad disc with concave sides, and not flare-shaped as in the discussed Wroclaw vessel. Additionally, the decorative elements on the shoulders of the Krakow aryballos are of a different shape, taking the form of lancet leaves. The spherical faience aryballos in the University of Leipzig Archaeological Institute, inv. no. T 4807, should also be mentioned here. The vessel is described to be a product of an egyptianized Rhodian workshop, dated to the second half of the 6th century BC (Müller 1959, 54, pl. 50: 1-2). In the shape and decoration of the body and shoulders it is very much like the Wroclaw aryballos. It also bears traces of turquoise glaze on the mouth, neck, shoulders and handle. Remnants of a glaze of the same colour may be seen on the mouth and handle of the Wroclaw vessel. Other close analogies are to be found in two spherical aryballoi in the Heidelberg University Museum, inv. nos. 14 and 15 (the latter found at Tanagra, cf. Schauenburg 1954, 14, pl. 4: 2-3) which are classified within the group ‘Melian and other eastern types’ (Schauenburg 1954, 14). Their bodies bear an incised cross-hatching pattern and on the shoulders one can observe oblong shapes painted in brown. Additionally, the shoulders of both vessels are separated from their bodies in the same way as in the discussed aryballos, by means of a groove. Another common element worth mentioning is the yellow colour of the body of one of the Heidelberg aryballoi (inv. no. 14) also observable in the Wroclaw example. The closest analogy for the aryballos under discussion can be found in a spherical aryballos in the National Museum at Copenhagen, inv. no. 271. The vessel, which is said to be from Athens, is covered with a greenishblue glaze largely abraded (Blinkenberg and Johansen 1928, 59-60, pl. 80, 2). The obvious similarity between these two oil containers is demonstrated not only in the general shape of all their parts, in particular their mouths, which in both cases take the form of a flare, but also in the decoration of the shoulders. Four oblong blobs of black-brown colour painted on the shoulders of the Copenhagen aryballos are almost identically shaped as ‘tongues’ forming the pattern decorating the shoulders A faience aryballos in the collection... 83 of the vessel under discussion. An additional common element is the colour of the covering glaze, which is greenish-blue in both cases. Webb classifies the aryballos from Copenhagen and one of vessels from Heidelberg (inv. no. 15) within section 3 of her division of these particular vessels (Webb 1978, 120, nos. 805 and 808 respectively). In my opinion all the other aryballoi cited above as analogies for the Wroclaw vessel seem to belong to the same group, although the author has not included them in her classification.5 It should be noted that one of the analogous vessels, the Krakow aryballos, was classified by E. Papuci-Władyka (2012, 23) as belonging to subgroup b of Webb’s section I. According to Webb (1978, 119), vessels belonging to section 3 represent the most common and the crudest type of faience aryballos, characterized by poor fabric, undecorated lip and handle, shoulder decorated with blobs of black-brown glaze, incised cross-hatching on the body, and a plain base. The cited Krakow aryballos, as well as the vessel under discussion and the abovementioned analogous objects from Basel and Leipzig, have all these characteristics, which makes their assignment to Webb’s section 3 justifiable. Spherical aryballoi classified by Webb within section 3 are close in style and fabric as well as in the use of incised cross-hatching for the main decoration of the hedgehog faience aryballoi, the commonest and most widespread type of figured aryballoi (Webb 1987, 72). They are also crudely modelled and thick-walled, with a wide range of width and blobs of dark glaze for subsidiary details (Webb 1978, 122, pl. XXI, fig. 905; Webb 2013-2015, figs. 1 and 5). Moreover, the concave mouth and the simple handle are elements in common with spherical aryballoi (cf. Webb 1978, Pl. XII, figs. 934 and 937). The hedgehog aryballoi closely related to the spherical aryballoi of section 3 are a 6th century phenomenon and are of Egyptian derivation (Webb 1978, 119). The sub-species of hedgehog represented in these vessels is found in Egypt (Webb 2013-2015, 3). Moreover, their Egyptian origin may be also confirmed by other types of faience aryballoi, for instance in the form of a tilapia fish (Webb 1978, 134-135, nos. 941-949) or a grasshopper (Webb 1978, 135, nos. 950-953), made in the same style and in closely related workshops. The distribution of faience hedgehog aryballoi is similar to that of their spherical counterparts, and examples with known provenance come mainly from Egypt, Rhodes, East Greece and the western Mediterranean (Webb 1987, 72). The first objects of this kind had appeared in the Rhodian vase 5 Cited here as Webb 1978. 84 A. Kubala series in the second quarter of the 6th century BC. However, most finds of these particular vessels with known provenance come from contexts belonging to the second half of the 6th century (Webb 1978, 133). They are very likely to have been manufactured in Egypt, in an area under East Greek influence. According to Cook and Dupont (1998, 140) the first workshops manufacturing East Greek faience were most probably located on Rhodes, but after Greeks became established in Egypt, production of faience wares flourished there. A faience workshop was discovered at Naukratis and some faience hedgehog aryballoi cited by Webb (1978, 133, nos. 905-906 and 916) were found there. Other known examples also have an Egyptian provenance (Webb 1978, 133, nos. 907-911; Mayence and Verhoogen 1929, 6, no. 5, pl. 5). Webb (1978, 132) suggested the same workshop for the crudest type of spherical aryballos (section 3) and the hedgehog aryballoi based on obvious similarities in the quality of fabric, thickness of walls and the decoration of the body. The author also pointed out that aryballoi classified within section 3 were made, judging from their distribution, partly or mainly at Naukratis and they most likely belong in date to the third quarter of the 6th century (Webb 1978, 119; Webb 2013-2015, 5). Both hedgehog and spherical aryballoi seem to belong to an industry which produced a variety of types of aryballos. Some of them were modelled on Egyptian prototypes, while others took their form from Greek types of clay vases for scented oils (Webb 1978, 108ff.), although it is obvious that producers of the faience vessels often mixed different artistic influences. It is impossible to say in the present state of research if they were Greeks or Egyptians or whether the production in the 6th century BC was actually centred at Naukratis, or if there was a number of manufacturing centres located in Lower Egypt and on Rhodes. The analysis of the excavated material from Naukratis and Kamiros on Rhodes has revealed many interesting similarities and differences between the chemical composition of faience objects from these two sites (Meek et al.2016, 99). The results of the study may provide a means of characterising and differentiating products of the two production centres. However, there is another premise which allows us to assume Naukratis, or more broadly, Egypt, as a probable place of production of the vessel in question. Longitudinal impressions inside, very easy to notice since the vessel had been discovered broken (cf. above), are remnants of the specific method of its production, employing a tightly bound wad of straw or reeds. The technique of forming the body of the aryballos by hand A faience aryballos in the collection... 85 around a wad of grassy plants is known to have been used in Egypt. A good example is the interior of the fragmentary preserved aryballos in the form of a hedgehog found at Naukratis, now in the British Museum (inv. no. EA 68829), showing marks of wound grass or reed packing (Webb 1978, 133, no. 905, pl. XXI, 905). The technique of using grass packing is also seen in other faience vessels made in Egypt (Webb 1978, 144, no. C2, pl. II). The abovementioned fragment of the hedgehog aryballos from the British Museum also shows other similarities to the Wroclaw aryballos. These are the colour of the fabric and the varied thickness of the body wall. Conclusions The analysis above clearly shows that the spherical faience aryballos kept at present in the University Museum of Wroclaw should be classified within section 3 of Webb’s classification, and thus it may date back to the third quarter of the 6th century BC. It is also very likely that the Wroclaw aryballos is a product of an Egyptian workshop, perhaps of that at Naukratis. To repeat, however, it is currently impossible to establish the findspot of the vessel in question. The shape and the decoration of the Wroclaw aryballos as well as the material it is made of clearly confirm its place within a very popular kind of vessel widespread over a vast area of the Mediterranean. Faience products of East Greek and Egyptian workshops were exported widely (Cook and Dupont 1998, 141). War destruction of documentation of pre-war Wroclaw museums as well as the possibility, which cannot be ruled out, that it belonged to a private collection makes it impossible to answer the question as to where the discussed vessel was found or acquired. References Blinkenberg C. and Johansen K. F. 1928. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Denmark 2, Copenhagen, the National Museum 2. Copenhagen. Cook R. M. and Dupont P. 1998. East Greek Pottery. London, New York. Demidziuk K. 2010. Ochrona zabytków archeologicznych na Śląsku w XIX wieku na przykładzie ośrodka wrocławskiego. Silesia Antiqua 46, 201–217. Descoeudres J. P. 1981. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Schweiz, Basel, Antikensammlungen, Schweiz-Faszikel 4, Basel-Faszikel 1. Bern. 86 A. Kubala Floryan W. 1970. Uniwersytet Wrocławski w latach 1945-1970. Księga jubileuszowa. Wroclaw, Warsaw, Krakow. Gębczak J. 1959. Muzeum Śląskie w latach 1945-1956. Roczniki Sztuki Śląskiej 1, 177–214. Mayence F. and Verhoogen V. 1929. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Belgique 3, Bruxelles, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Bruxelles. Meek A., Bouquillon A., Lehuédé P., Masson A., Villing A., PierratBonnefois G., Webb V. 2016. Discerning differences: Ion beam analysis of ancient faience from Naukratis and Rhodes. Technè 43, 94–101. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/32705660/Techne 43 94-101.pdf (status as of Feb. 15th, 2018). Müller W. 1959. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Deutschland 14, Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut der Karl-Marx-Universität 1. Berlin. Papuci-Władyka E. 2012. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Poland 11, Cracow 1, Jagiellonian University Collections 1. Krakow. Payne H. 1931. Necrocorinthia. A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Oxford. Rossbach A. 1877. Das archäologische Museum an der Universität zu Breslau. Wroclaw. Schauenburg K. 1954. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Deutschland 10, Heidelberg Universität. Münich. Webb V. 1978. Archaic Greek Faience. Miniature Scent Bottles and Related Objects from East Greece, 650-500 B.C. Warminster. Webb V. 1987. A faience hedgehog vase. In R. D. Barnett and C. Mendleson (eds.), Tharros. A Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and Other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia, 72–74. London. Webb V. 2013-2015. Archaic mixed style faience vessels. In A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, R. Thomas (eds.), Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt. British Museum Online Research Catalogue. Retrieved from http://www.britishmuseum.org/ pdf/Webb_Faience_vessels_SF_AV.pdf (status as of Feb. 15th, 2018). Webb V. 2016. Faience Material from the Samos Heraion Excavations. (Samos 13). Wiesbaden. Agata Kubala c/o Institute of Art History University of Wroclaw [email protected] A faience aryballos in the collection... PLATE 1 Pl. 1: 1 – Spherical faience aryballos, height 7.7cm, diameter 7cm, inv. no. UW-28, second half of the 6th century BC (?). Courtesy of the University Museum at Wroclaw, view of the vessel. Photo by Wojciech Małkowicz Pl. 1: 2 – Spherical faience aryballos, inv. no. UW-28. Courtesy of the University Museum at Wroclaw. Drawing by Nicole Lenkow S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Inga Głuszek Toruń THE ATHENIAN RED–FIGURE POTTERY FOUND IN NIKONION DURING EXCAVATIONS OF 2007-2012 Abstract: The article discusses fragments of the Athenian red–figure pottery discovered during excavations in Nikonion, an ancient Greek colony founded on the northern coast of the Black Sea, at the end of the 6th century BC. The collection of Athenian pottery finds at this site is very diverse in terms of technique, style and phase of production. In a short introduction to the article the state of research on the finds of Athenian red–figure pottery from the site is presented, but the main focus is on the findings of the UkrainianPolish team of archaeologists who conducted joint excavations at the site in the years 2007–2012. The described fragments of vessels, except for one item, come from the same archaeological context – a residential building discovered in the north-western part of the site dating back to the end of the 5th century – the first half of the 4th century BC. One vessel fragment comes from an earlier phase of the city development dated preliminarily to the second half of the 5th century BC. Keywords: Athenian red–figure pottery; northern Black Sea area; ancient Nikonion Introduction The Greek city Nikonion was located on the northern coast of the Black Sea, near Olbia Pontica – the main Greek polis in this area, and Tyras – a colony established at the same time or a few decades later than Nikonion DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.06 90 I. Głuszek (Pl. 1: 1).1 Today the archaeological site is situated in the area of Roksolany village, Ovidiopol Oblast, close to Odessa in Ukraine. The early phase of the city development dates back to the end of the 6th century BC, when it was founded by the settlers from Miletus (Sekerska 1989, 16–17). However, the numismatic findings from Histria and epigraphic evidence – the decree of Autocles found in Tyras (Sekerska 2007, 480), provided the grounds for the theory that Histria rather than Miletus was the mother-city of Nikonion (Sinicyn 1966, 55; Okhotnikov 1990, 66; Vinogradov 1997, 55; Samoylova 2000, 83). The archaeological site near Roksolany village was excavated by a Russian expedition, later followed by Ukrainian and Polish ones. The archaeological works at the site were initiated by M. S. Sinicyn in 1957 (Sekerska 1989, 9-15). From 1992 the excavations were headed by M. N. Sekerska from the Archaeological Museum in Odessa; in 1995 Polish archaeologists from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń joined their Ukrainian colleagues. The Ukrainian part of the expedition was supervised by Sekerska, and the Polish group was led by M. Mielczarek (Mielczarek et al.1997; Mielczarek 2016, 83-84).2 Within the sixty years of excavations, numerous assemblages of Athenian red–figure pottery were found at the site. They included whole vases, fragments of vessels and single sherds. Selected findings collected during these investigations were published in articles and chapters in monographs and books referring to Nikonion. One of these articles, by Sekerska, provided information on nine whole vases and approx. 400 fragments recovered by the excavations (Sekerska 1982, 136). This paper presents the most interesting sherds, including fragments attributed to the Shuvalov Painter (Sekerska 1982, 139-140). Other specimens selected from the group of whole vases, namely two kraters, one pelike and a skyphos, were published in another article (Sekerska 1983, 123-135), and were further discussed The discussion on the chronology of foundation of the both cities is still open. Tyras is argued to exist either already at the end of the 6th century BC (Karyshkovsky and Kleyman 1985, 40), or developed in the 5th century BC (Zograf 1957, 11; Blavatsky 1959, 13-14; Samoylova 2007, 439). With regard to the time when Nikonion was established, it was suggested that the city had its beginning in the middle of the 6th century BC (Sinicyn 1966, 53; Karyshkovsky and Kleyman 1985, 40), but in the light of the recent studies the last decade of the 6th century BC is more probable (Okhotnikov 1997, 28; Vinogradov 1999, 55; Sekerska 2001, 126). 2 I would like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Mariuisz Mielczarek and Natalia Mihailovna Sekerska for the opportunity to work with pottery findings from Nikonion and their support and fruitful cooperation. 1 The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 91 in a monograph on Nikonion (Sekerska 1989, 100). Both of these kraters, a bell krater and a calyx–krater, were decorated with scenes representing Dionysos and his thiasos. The bell krater was dated to the second half of the 5th century BC, close to the circle of the Penelope Painter (Sekerska 1983, 128; Sekerska 1989, 100; Sekerska 2007, 496–497), and the calyx– krater was suggested to be work of a painter whose style is close to that of the Meidias Painter (Sekerska 1983, 126).3 As far as the pelike is concerned, it was described as being stylistically close to the Agrigento Painter (Sekerska 1983, 123 and 128; Sekerska 1989, 100), while the skyphos was assigned to the late works of the Athenian workshops, dated to the 4th century BC (Sekerska, 1983, 128; Sekerska 1989, 100). Athenian red–figure pottery from excavations of 2007 – 2012 The fragments of Athenian red–figure pottery presented in detail in this paper were discovered during the archaeological campaigns of the Ukrainian– Polish team that took place between 2007 and 2012. During these five years of excavations, archaeological works were conducted in the north–western part of the plateau (trench VII). In the course of the excavations, six rooms of a large (probably residential) building were unearthed. The building was in use from the last decades of the 5th century BC to the third quarter of the 4th century BC (Pl. 1: 2). As a result of the archaeological works an older phase of habitation of this part of the site was also discovered. This phase can be preliminarily dated to the second half of the 5th century. The architectural remains associated with the older phase, namely a fragment of a stone wall and a clay floor, also indicated a domestic character of that construction, though in a different spatial layout when compared with the building from the late Classical period (Głuszek 2012, 497–500). The kraters with Dionysian decoration were the subject of preliminary studies conducted by the author of this article, in the course of her master thesis. The analysis of the style used in decoration of the bell krater proved its connection with the works assigned to the Painter of Louvre Centauromachy (ARV² 1088; 450–440 BC); the composition and details of drawing recorded on the calyx-krater revealed its connection with painters from the Group of Polignotos, especially with the Hector Painter (Beazley Addenda, 155156; 430–420 BC). It must be stressed that the suggested chronology determination and the artefact attribution were only the first stage of the studies that require further investigations. However, other scholars, like I. I. Vdovichenko also implied a connection between the style of the Nikonion kraters and the manner typical of the Group of Polygnotos. She suggested that the both kraters belonged to that group and might be dated to 440 BC (Vdovichenko 2008, 55). 3 92 I. Głuszek Shapes of vessels The group of red–figure pottery from excavations in trench VII consisted of 14 fragments, among which there were examples of kraters, skyphoi, one oinochoe, olpe or pelike, squat lekythoi and sherds of closed type vases of an unknown shape. The kraters were represented by three fragments: two sherds being parts of a rim and one of the lower part of the krater body. All of these fragments can be described as parts of bell–kraters (Jacobsthal 1934-1936, 117; Kanowski 1984, 63). Considering the fragments of the krater rim, lacking any detailed decoration their dating was of rather general nature. The first example (no. 1),4 based on the shape of the rim, the leaves and the quality of drawing (Pl. 2: 1), can be dated to the second half of the 5th century BC, while the second one (no. 9, Pl. 2: 2) was probably manufactured by the Athenian workshops in the first half of the 4th century BC. The third fragment (no. 10, Pl. 4: 4 wore a decoration typical of the first decades of the 4th century BC (Boardman 2001, 102). Another group comprised six fragments of skyphoi. All of them represent the skyphoi type A, produced in the Athenian workshops since the middle of the 6th century BC (Kanowski 1984, 138). This type of vessel developed in the 5th century BC and was given a shape with characteristic straight walls and a rounded rim (Agora 30, 62), like in the example from Nikonion (no. 13, Pl. 2: 5). During the 5th century BC profiles of skyphoi bodies were modified with curves forming the lower and the upper sections of a vessel. The curvature in the lower part of the body was recorded for the first time in vessels dated to the second quarter of the 5th century BC and was still present in skyphoi from the 4th century BC (Agora 12, 84). This specific curve of the vessel body can be observed in the specimen from Nikonion (no. 3, Pl. 2: 6). The second curve in skyphos profiles appeared just below the rim and was noticed for the first time on vessels from the end of the 5th century BC (Agora 12, 84). During the 4th century BC, skyphoi continued to develop, acquiring an ultimate shape with their rims turned outside (Agora 12, 84–85). Amongst the examples from Nikonion, there were two fragments representing the early phase of the type with a rim turned outside (nos. 11, 12, Pl. 2: 3-4). The two remaining fragments of skyphoi came from vessel bodies (nos. 4, 5). The numbers used in the text above to identify every fragment refer to the numbers given in the catalogue being the second part of this article. The catalogue description contains an inventory number of the particular archaeological find, technical features, typology, chronology and detailed bibliography for each fragment. 4 The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 93 Another shape recognised among fragments from Nikonion is the oinochoe shape 3 (no. 6, Pl. 2: 7), which is one of the most common types known from the 5th and the beginning of the 4th century BC (Hoorn 1951, 53–54; Green 1971, 189–228, Agora 30, 41). The oinochoe from Nikonion can be dated to the late 5th century BC (Green 1971, 196, 208; Agora 12, 61, nos. 118, 124). There were also fragments (nos. 2, 7, 8, 14) coming from vessel bodies, the characteristic (diagnostic) traits of which were not sufficient enough to allow an explicit identification of their shapes. In this case, any speculation referring to their shape must be considered only a hypothetical assumption. Two of them (nos. 7, 14, Pl. 4: 1, 8) might have come from a squat lekythos (Kanowski 1984, 94: 6), and the third one (no. 8) could be a remnant of an olpe or a pelike (Kanowski 1984, 112: no. 2, 108: no. 3). The last sherd (no. 2, Pl. 3: 2) might have belonged to a closed type vessel of an unknown shape. Decoration and chronology The Athenian red–figure pottery under study can be classified into three chronological groups, which represent different styles of vase painting. The first group comprises examples of pottery dated to 450-420 BC, the second group refers to 420-390 BC, while the third group encompasses fragments dated between 400-375 BC. Group 1 Group 1 is represented by two items: one fragment of a krater (no. 1) and one fragment of a vessel body of an undetermined shape (no. 2). The fragments counted to this group can be dated to 450-420 BC, when vase painting was characterized by a free decorative style formed under influence of other arts, especially sculpture (Richter 1958, 115, Pollitt 1972, 100–105). This is particularly noticeable in depictions of garments, where material falls more naturally, and more folds are captured, leading to an increased ‘depth’ of the composition (Boardman 2001, 96–97). In the same way, the anatomy of figures becomes more natural thanks to a very detailed representation of eyes (Richter 1958, fig. 33). In the second half of the 5th century BC, especially in the third quarter of this century, many famous painters worked in the Athenian workshops. A major role in the vase painting development of that time was played by the Achilles Painter, and the importance of the Niobid Painter was no lesser in this respect. The Niobid Painter (ARV² 601) and his followers started to create more complicated scenes on vases, with complex composition layouts involving many figures. 94 I. Głuszek Polygnotos (ARV² 1029), whose works were influenced by the Niobid Painter circle, put great effort into designing compositions inspired by wall paintings, illusive in terms of depth and natural scenery like trees, plants and rocks, which made the scenes more realistic in reception (Robertson 1975, 327, 418). Amongst the considered fragments from Nikonion dated to the period between 450–420 BC there were examples with decoration that only partly resembled an elaborate composition or played a secondary role in vase decoration. The first sherd represents a fragment of a krater rim (no. 1) showing only a part of a laurel wreath (Pl. 3: 1). It was a decorative element typical of bell–kraters (Boardman 1989, figs. 154, 341-346), and only the shape and size of the leaves, along with the quality of glaze covering the background, could indicate its chronology. Another fragment (no. 2) was recognised as a part of a closed vessel of an undetermined shape and was covered with a sophisticated drawing of a male face with carefully and delicately depicted lines of the eye (Pl. 3: 2). Facial features expressed by a thin line of black glaze created a detailed image of the eyelids, pupil and brow, which is very characteristic of the painters from the third quarter of the 5th century BC. The fragment from Nikonion can be dated to 440/435– 430 BC, and the style of the painted decoration may be described as close to that of the Kleophon Painter (Robertson 1992, 221–223, Papuci-Władyka 2001, 267), who represents the second generation of the Group of Polygnotos5 (Matheson 1995, 295–296). The earliest works of the Kleophon Painter are dated to 440 BC (Gualandi 1962, 227–260) or 435-430 BC (IslerKereneyi 1973, 23–33), and his latest works come from the last decade of the 5th century BC (Matheson 1995, 296). Group 2 Group 2 includes six sherds: three of them belong to skyphoi (nos. 3, 4, 5), one comes from an oinochoe (no. 6), another represents a body fragment, probably of a squat lekythos (no. 7), and the last is the upper part of an olpe or a pelike (no. 8). The fragments from Nikonion are typical in style of the high Classical period dated to 420–390 BC. At this time, some painters were attracted to the idea of pictorial depth and volume, characteristic of the ornate style The style of the Polygnotos vase painting referred to the manner of the Niobid Painter and, as proved by detailed studies, Polygnotos and the above-mentioned Hector Painter as well as Lykaon (ARV² 1044.1 1046.11) and the Coghill Painter (BAPD 30252, 213536) worked in one workshop, constituting the first generation of the Group of Polygnotos that developed in the years 450–420 BC (Matheson 1995, 295). 5 The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 95 (Lissarrague 2001, 184; Richter 1958, 142–143). In this manner of vase painting the subject and composition were often inspired by theatrical plays and literary drama (Talpin 2007, 30–32; Bundrick 2005, 136–139). Others, representing minor works, where motifs and decoration were simplified, revealed a certain routine in drawing and schematic composition (Robertson 1992, 235; Cook 1997, 183–184). Amongst the considered materials from Nikonion, the most interesting in terms of decoration, was a fragment of a skyphos body (no. 4), where only the lower part of a standing figure has preserved. The specific treatment of folds arranged in spiral waves (Pl. 3: 4) was most popular in vase painting from the last decade of the 5th century BC, represented by works of the Kadmos Painter and his followers, the Kiev Painter and the Kekrops Painter (Robertson 1992, 247, 249). The composition preserved on the fragment from Nikonion did not reveal enough features to ascribe it to a specific painter, although it was possible to connect its style with the artistic manner of the Kadmos Painter and his group (Campenon 1994, 35–37; Robertson 1992, 247–249). The same manner of composition, rich in details expressed by long lines forming a detailed composition, was represented by a decoration recorded on a body of a closed vessel, probably a squat lekythos (no. 7). On this sherd only a part of a mantled figure has preserved. It was impossible to recognize whether it was a man or a woman, but it can be assumed that the sherd was ornamented with a depiction of a standing figure (Pl. 4: 1). In spite of the limited possibility for interpretation, the style of the drawing, i.e. free, thin lines of folds and a straight, clear line marking the edges of the mantle, indicated more elaborate works known from vases dated to 420–410 BC. In this period some painters created compositions referring to the elaborate style of the Group of Polygnotos, although their compositions were lighter in drawing thanks to using thin lines of thick glaze for wavy, strongly curved folds, which gave an impression of thin textiles of clothing. This manner might be recognized as the influence of Meidias, one of the most significant painters of the high style of the Classical period. With respect to small vases, like squat lekythos or other oil containers from the last quarter of the 5th century BC, their decoration was often limited to one figure in the centre of the vase body, with a scarce floral ornament or without any background ornamentation. The composition preserved on the fragment from Nikonion is close in style to that of the Chrysis Painter (ARV² 1158; BAPD 215338, 215339), and a member of the school of the Dinos Painter (Matheson 1995, 200). It also resembles the manner of drawing of the Calliope Painter (ARV² 1259-1263), whose style was characteristic 96 I. Głuszek of the last decades of the 5th century BC (Robertson 1992, 232). Another fragment (no. 5) displayed a woman’s face with a specific drawing of an eye, the style of which indicated the manner of a painter who paid a lot of attention to anatomic details of depicted figures, which was of great importance to craftsmen of the third quarter of the 5th century BC. Nevertheless, in this particular case the drawing was more schematic and careless, showing an influence of the new tendency in vase painting developed in the last decades of the 5th century BC (Pl. 3: 5). With regard to other three fragments, i.e. one of a skyphos, one of an oinochoe and one of an olpe or pelike, they represent a different style in decoration, since they lack any attention to details in their composition. On the fragment of a skyphos (no. 3), figures were joined directly with the lower bordure limiting the composition (Pl. 3: 3). These features were distinctive of vase painting from the end of the 5th century BC (Cook 1997, 184). The figure decoration on the fragment of an oinochoe (no. 6) reveals a very general and sketchy style, as if the painter did not pay any attention to details, such as the shape of feet or an elaborate drawing of clothing (Pl. 3: 6). It was also typical of vase painting within the late 5th and the early 4th centuries BC (Cook 1997, 184, 186–187). Certain elements of the oinochoe decoration, such as horizontal, irregular lines of folds above the feet, resemble the style of the Brown-egg Painter (ARV² 1352:13; BAPD 240066), the Bull Painter (ARV² 1350:13; BAPD 240022) and the Painter of London 543 (ARV² 1348: 4; BAPD 240003), who were active in the late 5th century BC. The other interesting fragment (no. 8, Pl. 4: 2), primarily identified as the upper part of an olpe or a pelike, also represents a more careless style, which was a common feature in vase painting of the late 5th century BC. Group 3 Group 3 comprises six fragments from the late Classical period (400– 375 BC): two fragments of kraters (nos. 9, 10), three fragments of skyphoi (nos. 11, 12, 13) and one fragment of a body of a squat lekythos (no. 14). Vase painters from the 4th century BC followed the ideas and style elaborated in the Athenian workshops in the previous century (Richter 1958, 154; Campenon 1994, 104–107; Papuci-Władyka 2001, 330). The style of vase decoration became more schematic, the drawings were careless and lacking details, e.g. elaborate depiction of hairstyle, elements of dress, depictions of jewellery, and even the anatomy of figures was more generalized and sometimes expressed incorrectly (Sabattini 2000, 47–65). The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 97 In this period many groups of painters were working in Athens. Amongst them was the Fat Boy Group, specializing in decorations consisting of two or three men, usually an athlete placed between two figures, with roughly sketched details of anatomy and garments. Two fragments of group 3 carried features characteristic of the painters from the Fat Boy Group (Pl. 4: 5-6). The most distinctive one was depicting naked figures heavy in proportions with massive bodies, or dressed figures almost completely covered by mantles, including their hands. A typical trait was the shape of the mantle and the way its wide folds built a general schema of heavy and simple clothing. The floral ornamentation was limited to sketchy palmettes or single elements (leaves or petals) of what was once highly elaborated decoration. A great number of vessels were ascribed to the Fat Boy Group, but now it is certain that not all of them were decorated by the same hand; instead, they were executed by different painters (ARV² 1484-1487; Add² 382; Sabattini 2000, 47–48). The first fragment of the group in question was a part of a krater rim (no. 9) and can be dated to the aforementioned period. On the external surface of the rim only a small part of a laurel wreath has preserved (Pl. 4: 3). This made a detailed analysis rather impossible, but there were some features of drawing, such as long and not very carefully painted leaves, as well as dilute glaze on the background, which indicated that this vase could have been made in the first quarter of the 4th century BC, or even later, since this motif was strongly manifested in vase painting until the second half of the 4th century BC. On another fragment, namely a bell– krater body (no. 10, Pl. 4: 4), only the floral ornament preserved. It does not have much of importance for reading the main theme of the composition, but it illustrated well the frugal style of ornamentation that occurred in vase painting in the 4th century BC. On the sherd surface a fragment of a palmette has preserved, altogether with some kind of a single leaf depicted separately from the main floral ornament. The shape of the palmette, the form of the leaves and a small fragment of garment (the manner of folds expression) indicated a style of painting typical of the late Classical period (BAPD 562, 2205, 7226, 7952, 9769, 9771). The decoration of rims of the skyphoi (nos. 12 and 13) shows careless and perfunctory features typical of the late Athenian vase painting (Pl. 4: 6-7). The elements of composition were not as delicately executed as in the case of workshops that were functioning two decades before (Cook 1997, 186–187; Boardman 2001, 102). This is well–evidenced by a schematic drawing of an eye (no. 13, Pl. 4: 7) expressed only by short, straight lines 98 I. Głuszek (including a pupil), and hair depicted by a daub of black glaze (no. 12, Pl. 4: 6). On another fragment of a rim (no. 11, Pl. 4: 5) some elements of floral decoration were recorded. They might be described as the upper part of a palmette stem curved in a spiral shape. The floral ornament of this form had become very common in vase decorations by the end of the 5th century BC (BAPD: 7187; 9374). The last fragment counted in group 3 probably belonged to a squat lekythos (no. 14). It was decorated with a figure of a standing man or a woman wearing a mantle with one hand raised in front of the figure (Pl. 4: 8). The drawing of folds and anatomical details of the hand were very sketchy, which allows dating this fragment to the first quarter of the 4th century BC. Conclusions The red-figure pottery is widespread at archaeological sites along the northern Black Sea. The vessel production performed in the Athenian workshops is represented there by numerous examples of both, black– and red–figure pottery dated to the Archaic and Classical periods. The red– figure pottery from the end of the 6th and the first half of the 5th century BC is known from archaeological reports and monographs referring to results of archeological excavations carried out in the territory of Greek Pontic poleis. Those publications also included the finds from the last decades of the 5th and the 4th centuries BC from archaeological sites placed near Nikonion, Borystenes, Olbia, Histria and Tyras. Although in Borystenes (Berezan) the import of Athenian pottery was more intense in the archaic period and the first half of the 5th century BC (Ilina 2001, 159–170), there are examples of red–figure pottery from the last decades of the 5th century BC and the 4th century BC (Shapiro 2010, 291–316). Among these examples is a fragment of a bell–krater, and another one belonging to a skyphos, both representing the Fat Boy Group (Shapiro 2010, figs. 9, 18). There is a significant number of findings of Athenian red–figure pottery from Olbia – the most important and the largest Greek poleis located near Nikonion. The Athenian pottery from the above – mentioned site has been published only partially. Considering the materials known from the existing literature, an emergence of the Athenian pottery imported into Olbia dates back to the Archaic period. Red–figure pottery is represented by examples coming from the Archaic and the early Classical periods, though the pottery from the late Classical period also constitutes a numerous group of findings (Buravchuk 2014, 294–311). Among known examples, there are sherds representing the style of the Schuvalov Painter, the Q Painter and the Pithos The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 99 Painter (Buravchuk 2014, 294). Moreover, a discovery of a red–figure krater, skyphos and other fragments dated to the second half and the third quarter of the 5th century BC was reported (Vinogradov and Rusjaeva 1980, fig. 5). Amongst the findings from Olbia there was also a fragment of a bell– krater decorated in a style resembling that of vessel no. 4 from Nikonion. The fragment of this krater has not been attributed to any particular painter, yet it was dated to 420 BC (Talpin 2007, 30, fig. 9). Athenian red–figure pottery is also well–represented in materials recovered from excavations conducted in Histria. The findings of red–figure pottery discovered there can be referred to the second half of the 5th century BC (Histria IV, 478-479, 483, 492), and some of them (Histria IV, 478) can be referred to fragments from Nikonion (no. 7). However, there are also fragments that might be dated to the last quarter of the 5th century (Histria IV, 495, 505). Based on the published materials from Histria, a significant amount of Athenian red–figure pottery was dated to the last decade of the 5th and the first quarter of the 4th centuries BC (Histria IV, 485, 486). This group comprised a few examples that might be attributed to the Fat Boy Group (Histria IV, 496, 498-501, 504). Red–figure pottery is a rather rare finding in Tyras since most of this ancient site territory is now covered by the Medieval stronghold, which prevented any excavations from being carried out there. Although there are some examples of red–figure vessels from Tyras that can be dated to the last quarter of the 5th century BC (Vdovichenko 2008, 54, fig. 16: 10-11) and the first decade of the 4th century (Vdovichenko 2008, 54, fig. 18). Amongst them there is also a sherd from skyphos that can be assigned to the Fat Boy Group (Vdovichenko 2008, fig 18: 6, 10, 14), or another fragment with a floral ornament and decoration similar to that recorded on the skyphos nos. 11, 12 from Nikonion (Vdovichenko 2008, fig 18: 7, 8). Most of the fragments recovered during the exploration of trench VII referred to the end of the 5th century and to the first decades of the 4th century BC. They were examples of high quality vase painting and pottery decorated in a minor style. The vast majority of sherds represented drinking vessels (skyphoi) or were related to the act of drinking (kraters). Providing that the suggested shape was correctly identified, they can also be linked with the symposium. A separate group consisted of fragments that might be described as remains of squat lekythoi. They were often used as perfume containers, which constitutes a premise to connect this shape with female domestic life. Certainly, squat lekythoi were also present in the men’s world as bottles for pouring oil. The distinguished shapes mentioned in the article I. Głuszek 100 were associated with the daily life of Greeks that inhabited Nikonion in the Classical period. Taking this aspect into consideration, the archaeological material under consideration was helpful in interpreting the function of the building discovered in trench VII, and very useful in establishing its chronology. Catalogue The catalogue encloses the fragments of vessels described according to the chronological groups given in the article. Within every group of pottery particular fragments are presented in a given order based on their shapes: open/closed vessels represented by diagnostic sherds; fragments of a body (sometimes complemented with a suggestion of the shape), and fragments of open/closed vases of an uncertain shape. The abbreviations used in the catalogue are: diam. – diameter, h. – height, w. – width, th. – thickness. Group 1 Krater 1. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/07/3 Pl. 2: 1; Pl. 3: 1 Dimensions and conditions: Diam.: -; h.: 4.6cm; w.: 3.5cm; th.: 0.5cm. Fragment of a rim with a small part of a wall; the fragment is too small to reconstruct the diameter of the vessel; a few abrasions on the external surface. Technical features: Clay: pale pink–orange (7.5YR 7/6); glaze: brownish black, semi–matte, dilute; no color added; no admixtures. Shape: Flaring lip, with rounded rim, offset from the body below by a pronounced molding. Decoration: Internal surface is glazed except for a reserved band running just below the rim. On the external surface, below the rim, there is a floral ornament of a laurel wreath with leaves geometrical in shape. Classification and dating: Bell–krater, 450–400 BC. Comments: For the shape of the rim see: Rotroff and Oakley 1992, no. 30, fig. 3; type 2 of a krater according to Agora 30, 32–33, no. 303. Compare the shape of the rim and the type of the leaves with: BAPD 695, Shapiro 1981, 81, no. 30; compare also with: Cohen and Rutter 2007, 265, fig.13: 8, Shapiro 2009, 267, fig. 11. The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 101 Closed vessels of uncertain shape 2. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/09/156 Pl. 3: 2 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 3.1cm; w.: 3.3cm; th.: 0.6cm. Fragment of a body, well–preserved, slightly damaged on the external surface. Technical features: Pinkish orange, (2.5YR 7/4); glaze: reddish black, thick, semi–matte, added colors: white: (2.5R 4/3, white). Shape: Fragment of a neck and a shoulder of a closed vessel with a relatively narrow neck. Decoration: Internal surface covered with glaze; on the external surface, at the top, there is a fragment of egg–shaped pattern. Below the bordure a figure decoration has preserved, depicting a head of a man wearing an ivy wreath. The eye of the man expressed with precision; the upper, half–bent eyelid is longer then the lower one; a pupil is placed near the corner of the eye. The eyebrow is banded and longer than the eye. White color was used to draw the wreath on the man’s head. Classification and dating: Closed vessel of an uncertain shape, 440–430 BC, style of decoration close to that of the Kleophon Painter. Comments: Drawing of the eye close to the Kleophon Painter, compare with: BAPD 11614, 14111, Beazley 1925, 421: 23; compare also with: BAPD 215152, for other works of the Kleophon Painter see: 1046. Group 2 Skyphoi 3. Inv. no.: Nikonion VII/11/176 Pl. 2: 6; Pl. 3: 3 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 3.5cm; diam.: 9cm; w.: 6.8cm, th.: 0.9cm. Fragment of a foot and the lower part of a body; preserved 1/3 of the base with a small part of the wall. Fragment slightly damaged on the external surface, the internal surface covered with a white layer of residues. Traces of incorrect firing on the internal surface, at the bottom. Technical features: Clay: light reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); glaze: dark brownish black, thick, semi–matte. Shape: Vessel with clearly marked parts in its section: ring foot, low, with flattened external surface, thick walls at the bottom, opening wide towards the upper part of the vessel. Decoration: Internal surface covered with glaze, the external surface of the bottom reserved, the ring foot glazed except for the resting surface; decoration on the external surface of the walls has preserved very fragmentarily. Two feet and parts of legs are visible. 102 I. Głuszek Classification and dating: Skyphos type A, 420–400 BC. Comments: Shape in the type as referred to in: Sabattini 2000, Tr. 178B/8495; compare also with: Agora 12, 84–85, fig. 4, nos. 340, 342; for the characteristic style of composition, where depicted figures are joined with a border line, compare with: BAPD: 7023; 217480; 7181; Agora 30, pl. 94: 955; CVA USA 39/1, fig. 11, pls. 17: 1–2, 18: 2, 20: 7, 8; Hoorn 1951, fig. 18: 635; other examples, with specific anatomy drawing, dated to the third quarter of the 5th century BC: BAPD 7181, 12380, 22543. 4. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/11/201 Pl. 3: 4 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 4.6cm; w.: 5.1cm; th.: 0.45cm. Fragment of a wall from the lower part of a body; well preserved, traces of mending. Technical features: Clay: pale orange (5YR 7/4); glaze: brownish black, dilute, semi–matte. Shape: Fragment of a body of a skyphos. Decoration: Internal surface covered with glaze, on the external surface the middle and the lower part of a female figure has preserved. The figure is wearing chiton and himation. The folds of himation are marked in the centre by curved lines, and by parallel lines on the edge of the garment. On the edge of chiton there are wavy, circled lines, expressing folds or ornaments on a dress. The folds of himation are drawn by thin relief lines of thick glaze except for one wide fold on the edge of the clothing and the folds of chiton, which are expressed by lines of dilute glaze. Classification and dating: Skyphos, 410-400 BC; the style referring to the circle of the followers of the Kadmos Painter, close to the manner of the Kekrops Painter. Comments: For the Kadmos Painter and his followers see: Robertson 1992, 247–249; vessels attributed to the Kekrops Painter: BAPD 217590, folds shaped in waves, similar in terms of decoration to the vase ascribed to the Kadmos Painter: Shapiro 1993, 104, fig. 57; Kunisch 1996, 204; BAPD 215695, 215728, for a vase dated to 420–410 BC, with folds curved in the same way see: BAPD 12578; other examples with a similar treatment of folds on the vase dated to the beginning of 4th century BC, attributed to the Painter of Athens Wedding: BAPD: 220529; for the style of the folds compare also with: Sabetai 1997, 330, fig. 13; compare also with: Talpin 2007, 30, fig. 9. The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 103 5. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/10/18 Pl. 3: 5 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 2.1cm; w.: 1.8cm; th.: 0.4cm. Fragment of a body, external surface is well–preserved, internal surface is largely damaged. Technical features: Clay: pale orange beige (7.5YR 7/4); glaze: dark brown, thick, semi–matte. Shape: Fragment of a body with a straight wall in section. Decoration: Internal surface covered with dilute glaze, on the external surface a depiction of a female head is visible. Eyelids expressed by two straight lines, the short line above the eye marks the eyelid surface; the eyebrow is long and wavy in shape. The nose is drawn in a characteristic way, straight and thin. Classification and dating: Skyphos type A, 420–400 BC. Comments: The features of the face depiction are typical of the ornate style and the Meidias vase painting: BAPD 692, 9190, 10607; compare also with: BAPD 1797, Agora 30, pl. 50: 410, Beazley 1925, 466: 2 BAPD 217464. Oinochoe 6. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/08/42 Pl. 2: 7; Pl. 3: 6 Dimensions and conditions: Max. h.: 4.2cm; diam. of the foot: 10.5cm; max diam. of the body: 26.6cm; th.: 0.5cm. Four joined sherds of the lower part of a body; one–half of the base and ¼ of the wall has preserved. Technical features: Clay: pale red (5YR 6/6); glaze: brownish black, semi– matte; added colors: red. Shape: The vessel had a ring foot, rectangular in its cross–section, modeled on the external surface. The wall in the lower part of the body is rounded and runs straight up, which suggests an oval shape of the body. Decoration: Only the lower part of the decoration has preserved; two feet of a standing figure can be seen; the figure is turned right and is wearing a long cloak and chiton. The composition is closed by a single line on the lower part of the body. Classification and dating: Oinochoe, shape 3, close to the Class of Athens 1268 (Green 1971), 420-400 BC. Comments: For the shape and typology of the oinochoe see: Green 1971, 196, 208–210, fig. 4a; Agora 12, 60, nos. 105–138, figs. 6-7; oinochoai from the Athenian Agora excavations close to the fragment from Nikonion: Agora 12, nos. 118, 124; other examples of the oinochoe type 3 close in terms of their shape to: BAPD 1001533, for the characteristic horizontal line of the lower part of the garment (just above the feet) compare with 104 I. Głuszek the decoration manner of the Brown–egg Painter: ARV² 1352:13; BAPD 240066; a similar motif also known from vessels attributed to the Bull Painter: ARV² 1350:13; BAPD 240022, and the Painter of London 543: ARV² 1348: 4; BAPD 240003. 7. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/07/49 Pl. 4: 1 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 4.6cm; w.: 3.4cm; th.: 0.3cm. Fragment of a body; small abrasions on the surface and indentations on the body. Technical features: Pinkish orange, (2.5YR 7/4); glaze: reddish black, thick, semi– matte; no color added. Shape: Fragment of a body, slightly banded. Decoration: Internal surface covered by groups of vertical lines of different widths, made using dilute glaze. On the external surface a fragment of a male figure (?) depicted; only the middle part of the figure wearing a mantle has preserved. The cloak has a wide collar and curved folds expressed by thin lines. Classification and dating: Closed vessel, squat lekythos (?), 420–410 BC. Comments: For the style of drawing compare with: CVA USA 38/1, fig. 3, pl. 5: 1–4, BAPD 215340, the treatment of folds also resembles the works of the Chrysis Painter: BAPD 215338, 215339; for the painter see: ARV² 1046; folds of the garment are also close to the manner of the Calliope Painter – a similar drawing of the cloak collar: BAPD 215113 (=ARV ² 1260: 28); see also: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 57. 3 and Histria IV, 478. 8. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/09/74 Pl. 4: 2 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 3.8cm; w.: 4.2cm; th.: 0.5cm. Fragment of a body, largely damaged on the external surface, with slightly chipped–off glaze on the external surface. Technical features: Pinkish orange, (2.5YR 7/4); glaze: reddish black, dilute, semi–matte. Shape: Fragment of a neck and a shoulder of a closed vessel with a relatively narrow neck. Decoration: On the internal surface, the upper part is covered with a few (noticeable) layers of glaze. On the external surface, at the top, there is a fragment of a band of egg-shaped pattern. Below the bordure a depiction of a male figure is visible. The man is turned right; his eye is triangular in shape, and his lower lid is drawn using a very short line. The pupil is expressed by a horizontal line, and the eyebrow is formed in an arc, starting The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 105 in the corner of the eye. The drawing lacks details, except for the eye, which is marked by a relief line of glaze. Classification and dating: Olpe or pelike (?), 420-400 BC. Comments: For the shape and the style of decoration compare with: BAPD 1510,8026; the depiction of face features, e.g. an eye, close to the Painter of London E 106: BAPD 31804, similarities in the face treatment are also noticeable on the vase: BAPD 1773 attributed to the Painter of London E 395; for the painter see: ARV² 1140; a similar depiction on a fragment recovered from the Athenian Agora dated to 400 BC: Agora 30, pl. 72: 680. Group 3 Kraters 9. Inv. no.: Nikonion/ VII/11/229 Pl. 2: 2; Pl. 4: 3 Dimensions and conditions: Diam.: > 33cm; h.: 9.5cm; w.: 6.2cm; th.: 0.6cm. Fragment of a rim, with slightly damaged external surface. Technical features: Clay: pinkish orange (7.5YR 7/4); glaze: reddish black, dilute, semi–matte. Shape: Rim is turned outside, flattened at the top; wall is straight, becomes narrower close to the edge of the sherd. Decoration: Internal surface is glazed except for a reserved band running just below the rim; on the external surface a wreath between two reserved lines has preserved. Classification and dating: Bell-krater, 400-375 BC. Comments: Type 1 of a krater according to Agora 30–32, no. 287. For the shape of the rim and the style of decoration see: BAPD 570, 10321, 14126. For a similar treatment of laurel leaves see: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 72: 3.64/13 and Morgan 2004, pl. 31: 411. 10. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/09/17 Pl. 4: 4 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 5cm; w.: 7.4cm; th.: 0.4cm. Fragment of a body; slightly damaged on the internal and external surfaces. Technical features: Clay: pale orange–pink (2.5 YR, 6/6); glaze: reddish brown, semi– matte, dilute; added color: white; admixtures: mica. Shape: Fragment of the lower part of a krater body, slightly curved in section. Decoration: Internal surface is covered with black glaze. On the external surface floral and figure ornaments have preserved; floral-like ornament; there is a trace of a garment on the edge of the sherd. The folds of the garment (chimation or chlamys) expressed by a relief line of thick glaze. The folds 106 I. Głuszek are narrow and the edge of the clothing is strongly curved. Most of the sherd surface is covered with a floral ornament consisting of a palmette placed just beneath the handles and a separate leaf decorating the space between the palmette and a fragmentarily preserved figure composition. The palmette petals were depicted separately; they are geometric in shape and plain at the top (three petals are visible); the palmette was probably closed in an arcade. A separate leaf is large and strongly curved, slightly geometric in shape. White color was used to mark a wavy line on the glazed background between the floral ornament and the garment. The composition is closed at the bottom by a band of a meander. Classification and dating: Bell–krater, 400-375 BC. Comments: Treatment of the garment very similar to that on the bell-krater ascribed to the Painter of Vienna 1089: ARV² 1693, BAPD 260046, 10851; the same manner of decoration was recorded on: Agora 30, pl. 93: 950; for the shape of the palmette compare with: BAPD 22524, 22658; for a similar composition of a meander see: BAPD 29128; for separate elements of floral composition see: BAPD 562; 2205; 7226; 7952; 9769, 9771. Skyphoi 11. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/11/5 Pl. 2: 3; Pl. 4: 5 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 2.9cm; diam. of rim: -; w.: 3cm, th.: 0.4cm. Small fragment of a rim and the upper part of a body; one large and one small fragment damaged on the external surface. Technical features: Clay: light pinkish-red (2.5YR 7/4); glaze: black with dark brown shade (2.5YR 2.5/1), thick, shiny; admixture: mica. Shape: Rim narrow and rounded at the top, turned outside the vessel, external surface below the rim slightly concave. Decoration: Internal surface covered with glaze; on the external surface a fragment of a floral ornament, representing a leaf or a palmette stem curved in a spiral shape, has preserved; traces of leaves visible on the edge of the sherd. Classification and dating: Skyphos type A, 425–375 BC. Comments: The shape of the rim close to: Agora 30, nos. 1271, 1890; Agora 12, 84–85, no. 349; the shape also similar to: Sabattini 2000, T 862/6317; the floral ornament with a characteristic curved spiral stem was recorded on vases dated to the last quarter of the 5th and the first quarter of the 4th century BC, compare with: CVA Russia 6/6, pl. 69: 3-4; CVA Greece 9/1, fig. 35, pl. 62: 1–5; BAPD 12380. The same elements of floral decoration can be observed on fragments from Tyras: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 18: 7-8. The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 107 Another example with the same floral decoration comes from Chersonesus chora: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 83a: 9 and Kerknitis: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 100: 4. 12. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/11/9 Pl. 2: 4; Pl. 4: 6 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 4cm; diam. of a rim: -; w.: 4.3cm; th.: 0.25cm. Three joined fragments of a rim and the upper part of a body; the fragment is too small to reconstruct the diameter of the vessel; slightly damaged on both sides. sherd no. 1: h.: 3cm, w.: 2.4cm, th.: 0.25cm; sherd no. 2: h.: 2.2cm, w.: 4.1cm, th.: 0.25cm; sherd no. 3: h.: 2.8cm; w.: 2.5cm; th.: 0.25cm. Some damage on the surface, near the edge of the fragment; traces of incorrect firing. Technical features: Clay: pinkish orange (2.5YR 7/4); glaze: orange, thick, shiny; admixture: mica. Shape: Rim is narrow and rounded at the top, turns outside the vessel, external surface below the rim slightly concave. Decoration: Internal surface covered with glaze, on the external surface a figure of a man and a floral ornament have preserved. The man is turned left and is wearing a mantle (himation). The composition is schematic; details of the mantle and anatomical features of the man are roughly expressed. The man’s hair is expressed by one mass of glaze; on the cloak wide folds are drawn using straight lines. Behind the man, there is a floral ornament in a form of a straight, vertical stem curved in a spiral shape at the top. Classification and dating: Skyphos, type A, 400–375 BC; style of decoration close to Fat Boy Group. Comments: The shape in the type as referred to in: Sabattini 2000, T 893/26062 of the rim and wall close to: Agora 30, nos. 1271, 1890; Agora 12, 84–85, no. 346; a fragment with a similar depiction of a man: BAPD 22448; a similar depiction of standing, mantled men noticeable on the side B of the krater ascribed to the Nikias Painter: ARV² 1333; compare with: BAPD 217472; another fragment in a similar style dated to the beginning of the 4th century BC: BAPD 41245; CVA Greece 9/1, pl. 62: 1–5; BAPD 7187, 14792; vases assigned to the Fat Boy Group close to the style of described fragment: BAPD 230620,230682; a composition representing men standing opposite each other, surrounded by a similar floral ornament: BAPD 7187, 275557; a fragment from Chersonesus with a similar depiction of a man: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 6: 1.1773/09; a depiction of a mantled man with similar drawing of folds: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 142: 3; floral ornament compare also with: Vdovichenko 2008, fig 18: 7-8. 108 I. Głuszek 13. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/11/185 Pl. 2: 5; Pl. 4: 7 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 3.4cm; diam.: -; w.: 2.9cm; th.: 0.45cm. Small fragment of a rim and a wall has preserved, slightly damaged on the external surface, near the edge of the sherd; white residues inside. Technical features: Clay: pale orange (7.5YR 6/4); glaze: brownish black, thick, semi–matte; admixture: mica. Shape: Rim is rounded; the wall is vertical, a little wider in the upper part of its cross–section. Decoration: Internal surface covered with black glaze; on the external surface there is a band of egg–shaped pattern just below the rim, beneath there is a depiction of a woman turned left. Her head and the upper part of the body are visible. The woman’s hair is dressed in a bun supported by a ribbon; an ear or an earring marked by a curved line of thick glaze. Details of anatomy are drawn using thin lines of glaze in a little cursory manner. Folds of the garment are wide, marked by thin lines; thick glaze used to depict the eye and the ear/earring. Classification and dating: Skyphos type A, 400–375 BC. Comments: For the shape compare with: Agora 12, 84, nos. 336, 338; for the style of the face drawing compare with: BAPD 11769; CVA Russia 6/6, pl. 46: 7; for the style of depicting a standing woman compare also with: Agora 30, pls. 93: 951, 104: 1093; 31813; for other analogies see: CVA Italy 16/1, pl. 3: 1–7. Closed vessels of an uncertain shape 14. Inv. no.: Nikonion/VII/09/197 Pl. 4: 8 Dimensions and conditions: H.: 3.9cm; w.: 4.0cm; th.: 0.32cm. Fragment of a body, largely damaged on the internal surface, with small chips on the external surface. Technical features: Clay: pinkish orange (2.5YR 6/6), glaze: dark brown, thick, semi–matte; admixture: mica. Shape: Fragment of a body, slightly banded in section. Decoration: Internal surface reserved, on the external surface a figure of a man has preserved. On the edge of the sherd there is a reserved surface, trace of an unrecognizable element of the composition. The man is turned left, his body is covered by a cloak, his hand is raised up, in front of him. The lines depicting fingers and folds are thin, made with dilute glaze; the drawing is schematic and simple. Classification and dating: Closed vessel, squat lekythos (?), 400-375 BC. Comments: The gentle curve of the cross-section indicates that the fragment The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 109 was a part of a body of a squat lekythos, compare with: BAPD 251, 3313, 9086; the style of the decoration resembling the works of the Painter of Oxford Grypomachy: CVA Great Britain 18, pl. 27: 6–7; for the schematic style of the decoration compare also with: BAPD 11991, 14074, 217552; CVA Russia 5/5, pl. 10: 3. The fragment from Kerknithis with folds on a mantle formed in a similar style: Vdovichenko 2008, fig. 99: 11. Abbreviations ARV² = Beazley J. D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. 2nd edition. Oxford. Add² = Carpenter Th. H., Mannack T. and Mendonca A. 1989. Beazley Addenda. 2nd edition. Oxford. Agora 12 = Sparkes B. A. and Talcott L. 1970. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C. (The Athenian Agora 12). Princeton. Agora 30 = Moore M. B. 1997. Attic Red-figured and White-ground Pottery. (The Athenian Agora 30). Princeton. BAPD = Beazley Archive Pottery Database, retrieved from http://www. beazley.ox.ac.uk/pottery/default.html (status as of Feb. 16th 2018). Beazley Addenda = Burn L. and Glynn R. 1982. Beazley Addenda. Oxford. CVA Great Britain 18 = Moignard E. 1997. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Great Britain 18, The Glasgow Collections. The Hunterian Museum, The Glasgow Museum and Art gallery, Kelvingrove, The Burrell Collection. Oxford. CVA Greece 9/1 = Samettai V. B. 2006. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Greece 9, Athens, Benaki Museum 1. Athens. CVA Italy 16/1 = Becatti G. 1940. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Italia 16, Musei comunali umbri di Orvieto (Opera del Duomo), Spoleto, Terni, Bettona, Todi. Roma. CVA Russia 6/6 = Tugusheva O. 2003. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Russia 6, Moscow, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. Attic RedFigured Vases. Moscow. CVA Russia 5/5 = Sidorova N. A. 2001. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Russia 5, Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts 1. Moscow. CVA USA 38/1= Matheson S. B. 2011. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: United States of America 38, Yale University Art Gallery 1. New Haven, Connecticut. 110 I. Głuszek CVA USA 39/1= Matheson S. B. 2016. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: United States of America 39, Yale University Art Gallery 1. New Haven, Connecticut. Histria IV = Aleksandrescu P. 1978. La ceramique d’epoque archaique et classiques, VIIe-IVe s. Bucharest. References Beazley J. D. 1925. Attische Vasenmaler des rotfigurigen Stils. Tübingen. Blavatsky V. D. 1959. Process istoricheskogo razvitya antichnykh gosudarstv v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. In Smirnov A. P. (ed.) Problemy istorii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu epokhu. Moskva. Boardman J. 1989. Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Classical Period: A Handbook. London. Boardman J. 2001. The History of Greek Vases. Potters, Painters, and Pictures. London. Bundrick S. 2005. Music and Image in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Buravchuk O. B. 2014. Atticheska krasnofigurnaja keramika. In S. D. Kryzyckij and N. A. Lejpunska (eds.), Zylie doma centralnovo kvartala Olbii, 294–311. Symferopol, Kerch. Campenon Ch. 1994. La céramique attique à figures rouges autour de 400 avant J.-C. les principales formes, évolution et production. Paris. Cohen A. and Rutter J. B. (eds.). 2007. Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. (Hesperia Supplement 41). Princeton. Cook R. M. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery. 3rd edition. London. Głuszek I. 2012. The development of architecture in Nikonion in 4th century BC. In V. N. Zin’ko (ed.), Bosporan Readings 12. The Cimmerian Bosporus and Barbarian World in the Period of Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Problems of Urbanization, 497–500. Kerch. Gualandi G. 1962. Le ceramiche del Pittore di Kleophon rinvenute a Spina. Arte Antica e Moderna 19, 227–260. Green J. R. 1971. Choes of the Later Fifth Century. BSA 66, 189–228. Hoorn G. van. 1951. Choes and Anthesteria. Leiden. Ilina Y. A. 2001. Early Red-Figure Pottery from Berezan. In J. Boardman, S. Sergei, L. Solovyov and G. R. Tsetskhladze (eds.), Northern Pontiac Antiquities in the State Hermitage Museum, 159–170. Leiden. The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 111 Isler-Kerényi C. 1973. Chronologie und « Synchronologie » attischer Vasenmaler der Parthenonzeit. In H. P. Isler and G. Seiterle (eds.), Zur griechischen Kunst, Hansjörg Bloesch zum 60. Geburtstag. Antike Kunst Beiheft 9, 23–33. Bern. Jacobsthal P. 1934–1936. The Nekyia Krater in New York. Metropolitan Museum Studies 5, 117–145. Kanowski M. G. 1984. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes. St. Lucia, New York, Lawrence, Mass. Karyshkovsky P. O. and Kleyman I. B. 1985. Drevnyy gorod Tira. Kiev. Kunisch N. 1996. Erläuterungen zur griechischen Vasenmalerei. 50 Hauptwerke der Sammlung antiker Vasen in der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. Köln. Lissarrague F. 2001. Greek Vases. The Athenians and Their Images. New York. Matheson S. B. 1995. Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens. Madison. Mielczarek M., Okhotnikov S. B. and Sekunda N. V. (eds.). 1997. Nikonion: An Ancient City on the Lower Dniester: Commemorative Paper for the 40th Anniversary of the Archaeological Excavations at Nikonion. Toruń. Mielczarek M. 2016. Houses dug into the ground in Ancient Nikonion in the Lower Dniester region. In E. Maik (ed.), Fasciculi Archaeolo-giae Historicae. From Studies in the Culture of Medieval Europe, 29, 83–92. Łódź, [on-line] https://doi.org/ 10.23858/FAH29.2016.010. Morgan C. 2004. Attic Fine Pottery of the Archaic to Hellenistic Periods in Phanagoria. Phanagoria Studies, vol. 1. (Colloquia Pontica 10). Leiden. Okhotnikov S. B. 1990. Nizhne Podnesgtrov’e v VI–V v do n.e. Kiev. Okhotnikov S. B. 1997. Fenomen Nikoniya. In S. B. Okhotnikov (ed.), Nikonij i antichnyj mir Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. Tezisy Dokladov, 27–32. Odessa. Papuci-Władyka E. 2001. Sztuka starożytnej Grecji. Warszawa, Kraków. Pollitt J. J. 1972. Art and Experience in Classical Greece. Cambridge Richter G. M. A. 1958. Attic Red-Figured Vases: A Survey. New Haven. Robertson M. 1975. A History of Greek Art. Cambridge. Robertson M. 1992. The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Rotroff S. I. and Oakley J. H. 1992. Debris From a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora. (Hesperia Supplement 25). Princeton, [on-line] https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1353998. 112 I. Głuszek Sabattini B. 2000. Les skyphos du F.B. Group à Spina: Apport chronolo-gique de l’étude stylistique et typologique. In B. Sabattini (ed.), La céramique attique du IVe siècle en Méditerranée occidentale. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre Camille Jullian, Arles 7–9 décembre 1995, 47–65. Napels. Sabetai V. 1997. Aspects of Nuptial and Genre Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens: Issues of Interpretation and Methodology. In J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson and O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, vol. 1. (Oxbow Monograph 67). 319– 335. Oxford. Samoylova T. I. 2000. Elliniskoe i varvarskoe v duchovnom mire Grekov Nizhnego Podnistrov’ja v VI – I veke do n.e. In N. A. Shterbul (ed.) Pam’jatki arheologii Pivnichno-Zachidnogo Prichornomor’ya, 87– 106. Odessa. Samoylova T. I. 2007. Tyras. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2, vol. 1, 435–470. Oxford. Sekerska N. M. 1982. Neskolko fragmentov krasnofigurnoy keramiki iz Nikoniya. In G.A. Dzis-Rayko (ed.) Archeologicheskie pamyatniki Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya, 136–141. Kiev. Sekerska N. M. 1983. Pomeshchenie s kul’tovymi predmetami iz Nikonijy. Materialy po Arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya 22, 123–135. Sekerska N. M. 1989. Antichnye Nikoniy i evo okruga. Kiev. Sekerska N. M. 2001. Nikonij. In T. I. Samoylova (ed.) Antichne pamyatniki Sever–Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya, 115–138. Kiev. Sekerska N. M. 2007. The Ancient City of Nikonion. In D.V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2, vol. 1, 471–506. (BAR–IS). Oxford. Shapiro H. (ed.) 1981. Art, Myth and Culture: Greek Vases from Southern Collections. New Orleans, Tulane. Shapiro H. A. 1993. Personifications in Greek Art: The Representation of Abstract Concepts 600–400 B.C. Zürich. Shapiro H. A. 2009. Topographies of cult and ancient civic identity of two masterpieces of Attic red-figure. In J. Oakley and O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters II, 261–269. Oxford. Shapiro H. A. 2010. Notes on Attic red-figure pottery from Berezan. In S. L. Solovyev (ed.), Borisfen-Berezan’. Archeologicheskaja kollekcja Gosudarstviennogo Ermitazha, t. 2, 291–316. (Trudy Gosudarstviennogo Ermitazha 54). St. Petersburg. The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... 113 Sinicyn M. S. 1966. Raskopki gorodishcha vozle s. Roksolany Belyawvskogo rayona Odesskoy oblasti. Materialy po Arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya 5, 5–56. Talpin O. 2007. Pots and Plays. Interactions Between Tragedy and Greek Vase-painting of the Fourth Century B.C. Los Angeles. Vdovichenko I. I. 2008. Antichnye raspisnye vazy v Severnom Prichernomor’e (VII – IV vv. do n.e.). Simferopol. Vinogradov Ju. G. and Rusjaeva A. S. 1980. Kul’t Apollona i kalendar’ v Ol’vii. In V. A. Anokhin (ed.), Issledovanija po antichnoj archeologii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya, 19–64. Kiev. Vinogradov Ju. G. 1997. Synojkizm Nikoniya. In S. B. Okhotnikov (ed.), Nikonij i antichnij mir Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. Tezis dokladov, 54–55. Odessa. Vinogradov Yu. G. 1999. Istria, Tira i Nikonij, pokinutyj i vozrozhdenij. Numizmatika i Epigrafika 16, 50–71. Zograf A. N. 1957. Monety Tiry. Moskva. Inga Głuszek Institute of Archaeology Nicolaus Copernicus University [email protected] PLATE 1 I. Głuszek Pl. 1: 1 – The Greek colonies at the Black Sea (draw. I. Głuszek) Pl. 1: 2 – The living house from the end of the 5th–third quarter of the 4th century BC found in Nikonion (trench VII) (draw. I. Głuszek) The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... Pl. 2 – The red-figure pottery from Nikonion – shapes (draw. I Głuszek) PLATE 2 PLATE 3 I. Głuszek Pl. 3 – Fragments of red-figure pottery from excavations in Nikonion 2007–2012 (photo E. Kozłowska) The Athenian red–figure pottery found in Nikonion... PLATE 4 Pl. 4 – Fragments of red-figure pottery from excavations in Nikonion 2007–2012 (photo E. Kozłowska) S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Kamil Kopij Kraków WHEN DID POMPEY THE GREAT ENGAGE IN HIS IMITATIO ALEXANDRI? Abstract: The aim of this article is to revisit the issue of Pompey the Great’s imitatio Alexandri, especially the timetable for its beginnings and development. Previous studies of the subject have indicated that either the Roman general was involved in imitating the Macedonian king since his youth, or he did not do so at all. Meanwhile, this article presents evidence indicating that the most likely scenario implies that the image of Pompey as the Roman Alexander was created during his eastern campaign against Mithridates. Moreover, it was probably Theophanes of Mytilene, Pompey’s friend and trusted advisor, who developed this theme. Additionally, there is evidence indicating that Pompey tried to limit the use of imitatio Alexandri primarily to the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, fearing that an ambiguous perception of Alexander in Rome would harm his image. Keywords: imitatio Alexandri; Pompey the Great; Roman Republic; Roman politics; propaganda Introduction Alexander the Great is one of history’s most recognizable figures. In the Hellenistic era his superhuman achievements made him a point of reference for philosophers trying to create a description of the ideal ruler. He was also a role-model for kings wanting to be perceived as his successors (cf. Stewart 1993). The Romans, who began to interfere with the affairs of the Hellenistic world at the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC,1 1 All the dates are BC unless stated otherwise. DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.07 120 K. Kopij met with the myth of Alexander already ingrained in social consciousness of the Greeks and other inhabitants of the eastern regions of the Mediterranean. This, along with the deep distrust of monarchy among the Romans, created a kind of dissonance. The Roman politicians both craved royal honours and feared them. At the same time, the Greeks knew no other way to honour their new ‘protectors’. Alexander’s achievements fascinated the Romans, especially their leaders. However, the attitude toward Alexander was not unequivocally positive during the Roman Republic. He was sometimes also perceived negatively as a tyrant, especially in philosophical writings (Kühnen 2008, 16). Comparing oneself to Alexander could be met with accusations of striving for autocracy. These kinds of allegations were popular in Roman Republican politics and could be devastating for a political career. Therefore, any imitatio Alexandri had to be managed carefully. The subject of Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri has been already studied by several scholars (cf. Michel 1967; Weippert 1972; Dreizehnter 1975; Badian 1976; Green 1978; Gruen 1998; Martin 1998; Kühnen 2008). The vast majority of them believe that the general imitated Alexander.2 Some scholars (Dreizehnter 1975, 213; Badian 1976, 216) are even of the opinion that Pompey was the first Roman involved in the imitatio Alexandri. Those who share this conclusion exclude the possibility of this kind of relationship between the king and Scipio Africanus or Scipio Aemilianus. It is believed that both generals were not imitating the Macedonian king but in their cases only the comparatio Alexandri was made by ancient authors (Kühnen 2008, 16). The definition Considering that the term imitatio Alexandri can be variously understood, it is necessary to define it. Generally, this term is used to name two different phenomena. The first involves comparing a figure to Alexander the Great and the expression of ancient authors’ opinions that this figure imitated the Macedonian king. The second is based on ancient sources notifying activities related to the imitatio Alexandri undertaken by the figure himself (Kühnen 2008, 16). The first understanding – i.e. the one postulated by the third party, usually an ancient writer – should not be treated as imitatio. Instead, the term comparatio should be used (Green 1978, 1-26). Therefore, we deal with a ‘real’ imitatio only when a person of interest, and not an ancient author, referred to Alexander the Great and imitated him. 2 Except from Gruen 1998, 178-191 and Martin 1998, 23-51. When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 121 In cases where there is any evidence of a competition with the achievements of Alexander, we should rather use the term aemulatio. This distinction seems obvious; however, in reality the condition of source material is frequently inadequate to unambiguously determine which form we are dealing with. To recognize measures undertaken as imitatio Alexandri the imitator should utilize in his personal branding several issues associated with the king. He should refer to: 1. Alexander’s names and titles, 2. his physiognomy, dress, hairstyles, 3. gestures and posture visible in the sculptural portraits of the king, 4. symbols of power (the diadem, purple, etc.), 5. symbols of Alexander’s apotheosis (lion’s skin, bull’s horn, thunder, aegis, elephant’s scalp, astral symbols). 6. founding cities and naming them after himself or in a manner referring to one’s accomplishments (Michel 1967, 13; Dreizehnter 1975, 213). The tendency to imitate, compete with or compare oneself to Alexander resulted from a desire to equal his extraordinary deeds and be held in the same esteem as the king was in the Hellenistic period. He became an epitome of the ideal ruler soon after his death. Greek philosophers equated him with Heracles in their political writings as early as the 4th century. Like the hero, Alexander became the embodiment of the four basic virtues required of a good king: philantropia (φιλανθρωπία), eunoia (εὔνοια), euergesia (εὐεργεσία) and praotes (πρᾳότης). These virtues defined the way of conduct of an ideal ruler. First, he was obliged to defend Greek culture and to propagate it among barbarians (philantropia). Second, he should be just and gracious with respect to his subjects (eunoia). Third, he was obliged to found new cities and public buildings (euergesia). Fourth, he had to fight the barbarians, if necessary (praotes) (Antela-Bernárdez 2006, 34). The evidence for Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri The thesis of Pompey’s involvement in imitatio Alexandri is supported by written sources. First, there is Plutarch’s mention of a physical resemblance between Pompey and Alexander (Plut. Vit.Pomp. 2.1). This remark, however, should be regarded more as the evidence for comparatio, especially since Alexander was Plurarch’s point of reference. Moreover, the Greek author clearly stated that it was just an opinion, not a fact. A remark by Sallust (Hist. 3.88), Pompey’s contemporary, is not so easy to dismiss; the Roman historian wrote that Pompey had been compared to Alexander by flatterers 122 K. Kopij since his youth. As a result, he began to imitate (imitatio) the king and finally to compete (aemulatio) with him. According to Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 2.1), Pompey’s opponents quickly realised that and began to mock the general by comparing him to Alexander. It seems that Pompey stopped imitating the king as a consequence. He returned to this practice several years later during his eastern campaign. However, there is also a possibility that Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri was not simply revived but created in the East. In this case Theophanes of Mytilene should be regarded as its promotor. Sallust’s remarks are the sole solid evidence against this thesis. However, we must remember that despite being one of the leading Roman historians, he did tend to mix chronologies of events (Syme 1964, 69-81). Cognomen Magnus Pompey’s by-name, Magnus, is one of the issues broadly discussed regarding his imitatio Alexandri. Most scholars assume that the selection of the cognomen Magnus was a conscious reference to the king. It even has been speculated that Pompey might have considered adopting the by-name Alexander (Kühnen 2008, 57), despite a complete lack of evidence in the source material to support it. It is worth emphasising that the Greeks generally did not use the byname Magnus when referring to Alexander. The very name of the king was regarded as synonymous with greatness. Even in the cases when Magnus appears in the inscriptions of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Kyparissis and Peek 1941, 221-227) and Antiochus the Great (cf. Michel 1967, 35; Kühnen 2008, 57-58) it is not clear whether it was meant as a by-name or not. It seems that at least in the case of Antiochus’ inscription it referred to the Persian title of king of kings, usually translated into Greek as βασιλεὐσ μέγας (Μichel 1967, 35). It appears that the association of the name of Alexander with the by-name Magnus/Megas was established in Rome. The first traces come from Plautus’ comedy Mostellaria (Plaut. Mostell. 775-776) dated to the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries. At the time Magnus was not associated exclusively with Alexander. Fasti consulares are good evidence of that. Under the year 148 we notice Postumius Albinus Magnus. The by-name Magnus was used here to distinguish him from the consul of 174, Postumius Albinus Paullulus (Michel 1967, 36; Kühnen 2008, 57-58). Several different opinions regarding the time and context in which Pompey received his by-name are expressed in the written sources. Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 13.3-5) and Dio Cassius (30-35.107.1) reported that it had been given to him by his soldiers in Africa or by Sulla shortly after his return to When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 123 Rome. Appian noted as many as three different versions. First, he recorded that Pompey had been named ‘Magnus’ by Sulla (App. BCiv. 1.80.366). Then he reported that it had happened only after the war with Mithridates (App. BCiv. 2.91.384). Finally, summarizing Pompey’s life, he stated that the general ‘(…) had successfully carried on the greatest wars and had made the greatest additions to the empire of the Romans, and had acquired by that means the title of great.’ (App. BCiv. 2.86.363).3 Cassiodorus (Var. 4.51.12), instead, reported that Pompey had been named Magnus after the inauguration of his Theatre in Rome. Despite the differences, the three main sources (Plutarch, Appian and Dio Cassius) indicate that the bestowal of the title took place during or shortly after Pompey’s African campaign. The question whether soldiers or Sulla referred to Alexander when naming Pompey or not becomes another important issue in this context. The young age of the successful general favoured this kind of comparisons (Kühnen 2008, 58; Martin 1998, 35), especially if it was true that he had looked up to Alexander since his youth (Spranger 1958, 38). It is worth mentioning that in Africa Pompey did not only fight the enemies but also spent some time hunting (Plut. Vit.Pomp. 12.5). This could have also been seen as a reference to Alexander (Michel 1967, 37). Other questions regarding Pompey’s by-name are: when exactly did he begin to use it and when was it publicly accepted for the first time? According to Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 13.5) he started to sign his letters as Pompeius Magnus in the course of the Sertorian War. The same author reported that the by-name had been used for the first time by the censors during the census equitum in 70 (Plut. Vit.Pomp. 22.4-6). Nevertheless, it seems that general acceptance did not come before the end of Pompey’s Eastern campaign.4 At that time Cicero started to use the cognomen Magnus in his writings (Cic. Arch. 24; Cic. Fam. 5.7). There are also plenty of inscriptions from the east dated to this period that refer to Pompey as Magnos or Megas5. Appian, The Roman History, trans. H. White, Harvard 1912-1913. Although there are some Latin inscriptions that are sometimes dated earlier: to the end of the Sertorian war: Tarraco: CIL.I2.2964a (cf. Michel 1967, 47) and Clusium: CIL.I2.768 (Amela Valverde 2001a, 98) or after the war with pirates: Rome: CIL.I2.2710. However the dates are not certain. 5 Argos: AE.1920.81; Delos: SIG3.749A; Ilium: AE.1990.940; Magnesia ad Sipilum: SEG.XVII.525; Miletopolis: AE 1907.183; Mytilene: AE 1971.453, AE.1936.19, IG.XII.2.140-142, IG.XII.2.144-145; IG.XII.2.163-166; IG.XII.2.202, SIG3.693; Iulis/ Ceos: IG.XII.5.625; Philadelpheia: AE 1957.18; Samos: AE 1912.215; Side AE 1966.462; Soloi-Pompeiopolis: AE 1888.106; Chalium: SEG.XII.270. 3 4 124 K. Kopij Physical resemblance The next issue to be considered in the context of the imitatio Alexandri is a physical resemblance. Plutarch mentioned it but, as I have stated before, he clearly reported that it was an opinion of flatterers and not a fact. Scholars point, however, to a number of similarities between the portraits of Pompey and Alexander. The most noticeable being a characteristic hairstyle, i.e. ἀναστολὴ (Pl. 1: 1-2) (Michel 1967, 23; Kühnen 2008, 54). Moreover, Pompey’s portraits imitated a peculiar tilt of the head present also in the portraits of Alexander (Michel 1967, 23; Kühnen 2008, 56). However, it is worth mentioning that some scholars reject the idea that it was a conscious reference to the Macedonian (cf. La Rocca 1987-1988, 273). In the context of a postulated imitatio Alexandri in portrait, a question arises whether it was a direct wish of Pompey to be presented in this way or rather the result of the reception of his propaganda image as the Roman Alexander. The later seems more probable since Pompey had nothing to do with most, if not all, of the portraits preserved to our times.6 It is even more so in the case of statues erected in his honour in the East that we know of only due to inscriptions. While the tilted head was a simple form that might (or might not) have referred to the portraits of Alexander, the ἀναστολὴ brings more questions. Did Pompey really wear the hairstyle or was he only presented that way? If the former, was it meant to be a reference to the Macedonian, or was it pure coincidence? Finally, when did Pompey begin to wear the ἀναστολὴ? There is no way to answer first two questions. However, we can try to resolve the last one based on analysis of Pompey’s portraits. It is believed that earliest portraits of the general that we have copies of were created in the 70s and so they show him as a man between 30 and 40 years of age. The earliest of them is perhaps the head in the Louvre that bears some resemblance to the portraits of the Sullan era (de Kersauson 1996, 43). In addition, there is a small terracotta head in Basel interpreted as a portrait of young Pompey (Trunk 2008, 152). If the identification and the date are correct, it would mean that Pompey presented himself as the Roman Alexander to the public before his eastern campaign. However, not all scholars are undoubtedly certain that the head in the Louvre is a depiction of Pompey (Junker 2007, 74). Moreover, the supposed age of the sitter is not a good indicator of Most of them is dated to the 1st century AD: cf. Schweitzer 1947, 63; Michel 1967, 65; Johansen 1977, 60, 63; Giuliani 1986, 56-58, 320 note 2; Boschung 1986, 274-275; Poulsen 1948, 10-11; Poulsen 1951, 404; de Kersauson 1996, 42). Although it is postulated that they were copies of the originals created at different points in Pompey's life. 6 When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 125 the chronology of one’s portrait. In his study Junker (2007, 78-80) postulated that the style of the head from Venice is similar to the early portraits of Augustus and, therefore, was created after Pompey’s death, probably in the late 30s-early 20s, and not in the 60s (Schweitzer 1947, 88; Buschor 1949, 44; Johansen 1977, 61-63; Giuliani 1986, 200, n. 4; La Rocca 19871988, 270). Similarly, the postulated sitter’s age of the head in Paris does not necessarily indicate the time this type was sculpted. In fact, Junker (2007, 81), who based his study mainly on stylistic grounds, postulated that the earlier type of Pompey’s portrait that has survived to our times was represented by the head in Copenhagen (Pl. 1: 1). Its original was probably created in the 50s (cf. Schweitzer 1947, 86-88, fig. 117; Buschor 1949, 4446; Poulsen 1951, 404, pl. XLVIII; Michel 1967, 62-63; Giuliani 1986, 5658; La Rocca 1987-1988, 271 Johansen 1994, 20, no. 1; Kühnen 2008, 56). If Juncker is right, the earliest Pompey portraits we have copies of belong to the 50s. Therefore, we cannot say much about the way he was portrayed earlier. There are no coin types bearing a portrait of Pompey minted during his lifetime. Such coins occurred only after his death and had been produced by his elder son Pompey the Younger (RRC 470) since late 47 or even the beginning of 46 (Tsirkin 1981, 99; Amela Valverde 2017, 61, 81-85; Kopij 2017, 160). Coins are not therefore of much help in resolving this question. Pompey was the first Roman to be portrayed on gems on a large scale (Pl. 1: 3). Perhaps this should be also regarded as evidence for his imitatio Alexandri, especially as it is sometimes postulated that Pompey introduced this royal tradition to the Romans (Vollenweider 1955, 110). However, we cannot be certain exactly when these gems were created. It is possible that they were produced after Pompey’s death in Sextus Pompey’s camp or even later in imperial times. Unfortunately, the uncertainties regarding dating this category of artefacts result in their inability to help us establish a timetable of Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri (Kopij 2017, 257-262). Clothing and symbols of power There is only one piece of evidence to suggest Pompey alluded to Alexander in clothing as well. The general wore a mantle considered to be a piece of the king’s garment during his third triumph in 61 (App. Mith. 117.577). The mantle was a war trophy found in the treasury of Mithridates. Although its authenticity is questionable, it held considerable propaganda value. There is no doubt that Pompey wore it intentionally to present himself as Alexander’s heir (Kühnen 2008, 70-71). Nonetheless, the mantle is 126 K. Kopij the only symbol of the king’s power used by Pompey in his propaganda. It is worth pointing out that Mithridates was known for his imitatio Alexandri (cf. Fulińska 2015).7 The long-sought victory over the king of Pontus who opposed Rome for almost 30 years could have been a reason for adopting imitatio Alexandri. Especially since it meant defeating a man who presented himself as the new Alexander. Who could fill the role better than the ‘real’ new Alexander? No wonder that Pompey started to imitate the king and presented himself as his successor. Pompey’s propaganda also includes some references to Alexander’s deification and its symbols. Some scholars (cf. Mader 2006, 397-403) believe that the first attempt of public manifestation of this kind of symbolism took place at the time of Pompey’s first triumph. As described by Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 14.4), during the preparations the general wanted his chariot to be pulled by four elephants. It turned out, however, that the porta triumphalis was not wide enough for the animals to pass through. He therefore had to abandon the idea and use ordinary horses. Although Mader (2006, 397-406) suggested the elephants were intended to be a reference to Alexander, it is more probable that it was just a reflection of young Pompey’s insolence and a symbol of a victory over Africa. This kind of behaviour was characteristic of the culture of transgressing the boundaries of the mos maiorum expressed by leading Roman politicians of the Late Republic (Hölscher 2004). It is also possible that Pompey’s aureus bearing a female head with exuviae elephantis referred to Alexander (Pl. 1: 4). It is usually interpreted as the first personification of Africa in Roman art, although some scholars (Cesano 1942, 249; Amela Valverde 2001b, 2010) suggest that it was minted in the East during the final stages of the Mithridatic War and the figure on the obverse is thus in fact Alexander (Amela Valverde 2010). Unfortunately, we are unable to date the aureus in order to determine the meaning of its imagery. The context of minting gold coins in the Late Roman Republic suggests, however, that it was struck either during the war with Sertorius to overcome the scarcity of funds sent to Pompey’s camp from Rome, or during the conflict with Caesar (Kopij 2016). In the second case it would refer to Alexander whether it bore the king’s portrait or perhaps a personification of Asia as a symbol of the Eastern campaign. City founder The last position on the list presented at the beginning of this article states that only a figure that founded cities can be considered as Alexander’s 7 Especially pp. 172-178, also for additional bibliography. When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 127 imitator. The ancients saw the king as a founder despite the fact that he probably had little to do with most of the cities he was supposed to have founded (cf. Welles 1965, 225; Kühnen 2008, 66-68). This kind of activity was perceived as godlike, and with the number of foundations attributed to Alexander he could compete only with Apollo, Heracles and Dionysos (Kühnen 2008, 65). Pompey was extremely active in the field of city founding. Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 45.2) counted as many as 39 cities founded by the general. From this figure we are able to verify a quarter of the foundations at most (Dreizehnter 1975, 215). The rest is most probably the result of Plutarch’s imagination and desire to present Pompey as the Roman Alexander. Pompey began founding cities during the Sertorian War. There is no doubt that he established Pompaelo (present-day Pamplona)8 at that time (Pl. 2: 1). The town was an administrative centre of the territory inhabited by the Vascones. Its purpose was to guard one of two passages through the Pyrenees (Beltrán Lloris and Pina Polo 1994, 114-115; Amela Valverde 2002a, 166). The name Pompaelo was probably a local equivalent of Pompeiopolis and an amalgam of Pompey’s name with the Vascon suffix -ilu, -iru, meaning town or settlement (Beltrán Lloris and Pina Polo 1994, 114; Amela Valverde 2000, 11). The choice of this place was probably dictated both by its strategic location and the fact that it was where Pompey established his winter camp (Dreizehnter 1975, 234-235). The town was meant to be one of the symbols of Pompey’s victory and a counterweight to the Sertorian capital of Spain, Osca (Amela Valverde 2000, 12-14, 34-35). There is also a possibility that Pompey established another town, Gerunda (present-day Girona). Its task was to control the via Heraclea. However, this case is not documented as well as that of Pompaelo (Amela Valverde 2000, 31-35; Amela Valverde 2002a, 97, 169-171, 173). The inscription found in Cupra Maritima in Picenum dedicated to L. Afranius (CIL I2 752, CIL IX 5275, ILLRP 385, ILS 878) may be considered evidence for Pompey’s involvement in establishing a colony in Valencia. A large number of the Sertorii recorded in the epigraphic material from the area suggests that they might have been settled there by Pompey after the final victory over the Marians along with his own veterans (Brunt 1971, 591-592; Esteve Foriol 1978, 85-86; Amela Valverde 2001c, 66; Roldán Hervás 1972, 91; Ebel 1975, 369; Leach 1978, 53; Beltrán Lloris and Pina Polo 1994, 114-115; Ortiz de Zárate 1996, 169. Only Dreizehnter (1975, 233-234) doubts that Pompaelo was founded by Pompey. Mezquíriz Irujo (1966, 168) argues that no Republican material was found during the excavations in Pamplona and suggests that Pompey founded Pompaelo at different location. 8 128 K. Kopij Amela Valverde 2002a, 97, 103, 176-181, 218). Although the results of archaeological works suggesting the hiatus between the destruction of the city ca. 75 and the times of Augustus (Ribera i Lacomba and Calvo Galvez 1995, 37-38, 40) contradict this thesis, we cannot exclude it, as the excavation did not cover the entire area of the city (Amela Valverde 2001c, 66-67). To ease this dissonance Pena Gimeno (1989, 307-309) suggested that the inscription refers to another town: Valentia in Transalpine Gaul.9 In addition, Pena Gimeno argues that the residents of the city in the imperial times belonged to the tribus Galeria. This suggests that it was Augustus who established the colony, all the more so since there is no record of any Pompeii or Afranii in epigraphic material from the town. As well, the absence of Valencia from Strabo’s work indicates that it was founded at a later point (Pena Gimeno 1989, 303-314). These arguments were challenged by Amela Valverde (2001c, 67-68). First, he suggested that the membership of the tribus Galeria indicates that Augustus did not necessarily create the colony but could have only reorganized and enlarged it. The omission of Strabo is not an obstacle because both he and Pliny overlooked several other important towns. The absence of the Pompeii and the Afranii is, in turn, a result of settling veterans that had already been Roman citizens and therefore bore other Roman names. Nevertheless, in the face of all uncertainties it is reasonable to exclude Valencia from the set of Pompey’s foundations. It is also possible that Pompey gave the Latin rights to several Spanish towns after the Sertorian War. The Vascon Cascantum may be one of them. It was created after the Celtiberian Wars to act as an administrative centre for the Vascones, who were meant to counterweight the Celtiberians. It was destroyed in 76 by Sertorius for helping Pompey and Metellus Pius, the other Roman commander-in-chief (Amela Valverde 2002a, 202-203). Remaining loyal to the Senate could result in rewarding its inhabitants with the Latin rights. However, most scholars argue that this privilege was granted not before the Augustan era. The first coins bearing municip. Cascantum (RPC 425-428) are dated to the reign of Tiberius (Amela Valverde 2002a, 202203; cf. Villaronga 1979, 285-286). The archaeological evidence from Iluro (present-day Mataró) and Baetulo (present-day Badalona) in modern Catalonia suggests that Pompey may have been responsible for their foundations (Amela Valverde 2001c, 39Badian 1958, 311; Amela Valverde 2001c, 66. The foundation of this town is, however, usually linked with the activities of Caesar or Augustus (Hatt 1966, 80; Watkins 1979, 73; Rivet 1988, 75, 300). 9 When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 129 40; Amela Valverde 2002a, 206-207). A strong bond between the Lacetani or Laietani that inhabited the region and the Pompei that survived the death of Pompey the Great may be regarded as circumstantial evidence of Pompey’s involvement in establishing both towns. The analysis of numismatic material from Saguntum (CNH ArseSaguntum 64-66 and 75) and its correlation with written sources suggests that the town could owe its status as a colony to Pompey. For example, there is a coin type dated to 50-30 bearing the legend AED.COL, probably referring to the office of the aedilis coloniae. Thanks to Cicero (Balb. 23) we know that at the time Pro Balbo was written the town had the status of foederati. On the other hand, in 4/3 it was granted the status of municipium by Augustus. Therefore, it had to be a colony there between the two dates. Although it is possible that Saguntum received it during Pompey’s Spanish governorship in the 50s (Amela Valverde 2002a, 207-208), it seems most likely that it happened during the governorship of M. Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus is known for establishing another Roman colony in Spain – Colonia Lepida Celsa (Amela Valverde 2002b, 11). Based on the analysis of numismatic and epigraphic material, Abascal (2002, 28-32) deduced that Pompey could have also founded a colony in Carthago Nova in c. 54. According to this scholar, local coins (CNH 4-5; RPC 149) bearing the legend C•M IMP refer to the general and were minted in 49. The presence of the name Sabinus on the coins, however, raises doubts about this interpretation. The same name appears on the coins of Pompey the Younger minted in 47-46. This suggests that the local coins were minted at the same time and that Pompey the Younger was the founder of the colony (Amela Valverde 2002a, 208-209). Pompey’s city-founding activity in the 70s was not limited to Spain. The general created at least one town in Transalpine Gaul, Lugdunum Converanum (present-day Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges). It was probably founded on the site of a native oppidum at the foot of the Pyrenees on the Garonne (Ebel 1975, 369; Rivet 1988, 60-61; Beltrán Lloris and Pina Polo 1994, 114-115; Amela Valverde 2001c, 20-30, 34-35, 37; Amela Valverde 2002a: 171-173). It is possible that Pompey founded another town in the same province (Ebel 1975, 369). The evidence, however, is not conclusive. Pompey was also very active as a city founder during the war with Mithridates and just after its end (Pl. 2: 2). In addition, the evidence confirming several of his foundations in Asia Minor is much stronger than in the case of his potential Spanish foundations. Strabo (12.3.28-31) lists seven cities, and Dio Cassius (37.20.2) eight, established by Pompey 130 K. Kopij in Pontus. Most of them were created inland. Before the war these territories of the Pontic kingdom were administrated by a network of royal domains and sanctuaries (Esch 2011, 58-59). By founding cities Pompey wanted to reorganize the administration and make it more Greek-like. This, in turn, facilitated Roman administrative supervision. At the place of the royal city of Eupatoria, which was supposed to be Mithirdates’ showcase, Pompey established Magnopolis (present-day Kızılçubuk) (Strab. 12.3.30). Diospolis (present-day Niksar), was founded at the site of a royal stronghold (Plut. Vit.Luc. 15-17) or a palace (Strab. 12.3.30) called Kabeira. Zela (present-day Zile) (Strab. 12.3.37) was created in the territory of the sanctuary of Anaïtis, one of the most important local deities. The last city founded by Pompey in Pontus was Megapolis (Strab. 12.3.37). This city is identified with later Sebasteia (present-day Sivas) or Karana-Sebastopolis (present-day Sulusaray) (cf. Olshausen and Biller 1984, 143, 163-164). In addition, at the site of the final battle between the Romans and Mithridates located on the border between Pontus and Armenia Minor, Pompey created the city of Nikopolis (present-day Yeşilyayla) (Strab. 12.3.28; App. Mith. 105.115; Dio Cass. 36.50.3; Oros. 6.4.7). Pompey’s founding activity in the East was not limited to Pontus. He also created two cities in northern Paphlagonia: Pompeiopolis (presentday Taşköprü) (Strab. 12.3.40) and Neapolis (present-day Vezirköprü) (Strab. 12.3.38). It is important to note that Nikopolis, Diospolis, Magnopolis, Neapolis and Pompeiopolis were located on a trade route between Bithynia and Armenia (Magie 1950, 370). In all of these cities Pompey settled local people and Greeks living mostly in Mithridates’ strongholds and palaces as well as veterans (Dio Cass. 36.50.3; Oros. 6.4). The largest number of veterans was settled in Nikopolis on the border. They were intended to provide additional protection of the border (Esch 2011, 41). Pompey was also active in Cilicia. During his campaign against pirates he found many cities ruined and abandoned. After the war he decided to settle 20,000 captured pirates to repopulate Cilician cities (Strab. 8.7.5; Plut. Vit.Pomp. 28.2-4; App. Mith. 96.444): Mallos (present-day Kızıltahta), Adana, Epiphaneia (present-day Gözene) and Soloi-Pompeiopolis (presentday Mezitli-Viranşehir) (Strabo. 14.3.3; App. Mith. 115.562; Cass.Dio. 36.37.5-6; Plut. Pomp. 28.4). Despite opinions expressed in written sources that Pompey wanted to deprive the ex-pirates of a direct link with the sea, most of these cities were located by the sea and those that were not had river connections and/or harbours on the coast (Esch 2011, 46-47). The choice of When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 131 the cities covered by the settlement activity was dictated mostly by economic and military factors. They were intended to control this part of the coast that was crucial for both on- and offshore trade between the West and Syria (Breglia 1972, 366-377; Esch 2011, 47, n. 103). Six of Pompey’s Cilician cities: Soloi-Pompeiopolis, Adana, Mallos, Epiphaneia, Mopsuestia and Alexandria ad Issos adopted a new era, called the Pompeian Era (Ziegler 1993, 203-219). Discussion All of the above evidence shows that Pompey meets all the conditions of being involved in the imitatio Alexandri set by Michel and Dreizehnter. Although some of the evidence is questionable, it is reasonable to assume that he was trying to present himself as the Roman Alexander. This, however, does not answer the question of when exactly Pompey engaged in imitatio Alexandri. To answer this, we should also consider whether omitting the above would be testimony for comparatio rather than imitatio Alexandri. In written sources there are several passages describing Pompey’s deeds which closely resemble those of Alexander. Plutarch’s account (Vit.Pomp. 35.3-4) of the battle between Romans and Caucasian Albanians that took place by the River Abas is one of the more interesting. According to the Greek writer the Romans found at the battlefield shields and footwear characteristic of Amazons, although no female bodies were found. Appian (Mith. 103.482483) wrote, in turn, that there had been a lot of women, considered to be Amazons, among the prisoners of war captured during the campaign. In his summary of Pompey’s Caucasian campaign, Plutarch (Vit.Pomp. 34.5) concluded that the general had surpassed the accomplishments of Alexander, who had never subdued tribes living there. He even fought a successful duel with Koisis, the brother of Albanian King Oroises (Plut. Vit.Pomp. 35.2). Since we have no record of Pompey’s spolia opima, the authenticity of this story seems doubtful. Pompey would not pass up the opportunity to apply for the extraordinary honour of sacrificing spoils stripped from the defeated enemy. It is worth mentioning that this is not the first such heroic act attributed to the general by Plutarch. During the civil war in Italy, Pompey as a cavalry commander charged the soldiers of Lucius Iunius Brutus Damasippus. In Plutarch’s own words (Vit.Pomp. 7.2): ‘When from the enemy’s side also the Celtic horsemen rode out against him, he promptly closed with the foremost and sturdiest of them, smote him with his spear, and brought 132 K. Kopij him down. Then the rest turned and fled and threw their infantry also into confusion, so that there was a general rout.’.10 It should be noted that Pompey did not defeat just any opponent but ‘the foremost and sturdiest of them’, a testimony to his unique virtus. Appian (Mith. 106.497) told a similar story to that of Plutarch’s regarding the defeat of Koisis. According to him Pompey fought a king named Darius, as Alexander did. Moreover, Plutarch’s short introduction to the conquest of Syria brings Alexander’s deeds to mind (Kühnen 2008, 65). According to ancient sources, Pompey even treated Mithridates’ concubines the same way Alexander did the wives of Darius (Plut. Vit.Pomp. 36.2; cf. Kühnen 2008, 65). A fragment from Pliny’s Historia naturalis serves as the best summary: ‘(…) the splendour of his exploits having equalled not only that of those of Alexander the Great, but even of Hercules, and perhaps of Father Liber even’.11 This similarity between the deeds of Alexander and Pompey, especially evident for the time of Pompey’s eastern campaign, comes as no surprise. Not only did theatre of war make it obvious, but also the conjecture that Plutarch and other ancient writers based their narratives of Pompey on the lost biography written by Theophanes of Mytilene, the general’s friend and advisor. It is, therefore, very likely that it was Theophanes who started Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri as a part of a propaganda effort to win over the newly conquered and subjected people and create a personal patronclient link between them and the general. But did Pompey engage in imitatio Alexandri before his eastern campaign? To find an answer to this question we must go back to the time when the Senate and the Roman People entrusted the task of defeating Mithridates to Pompey. The legislative initiative was put forward in 66 by one of the tribuni plebis, Caius Manilius. Cicero, among others, backed the law with his first political speech, known as Pro Lege Manilia or De Imperio Cn. Pompei. The speech, which has fortunately survived to this date, is one of the best sources in enabling us to reconstruct Pompey’s personal branding activities at that time.12 In his speech Cicero listed all of Pompey’s war victories, giving us six (Cic. Man. 10.28) or even seven Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, vol. V, trans. B. Perrin, Harvard 1917. Plin. HN. 7.26.95: ‘Verum ad decus imperii Romani, non solum ad viri unius, pertinet victoriarum Pompei Magni titulos omnes triumphosque hoc in loco nuncupari, aequato non modo Alexandri Magni rerum fulgore, sed etiam Herculis prope ac Liberi patris.’ Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, trans. J. Bostock and H. T. Riley, London 1855. 12 At the same time it’s one of the best interpretations of Cicero’s vision of the theology of victory and his understanding of the role of princeps senatus (cf. Kopij 2017, 71-73). 10 11 When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 133 (Cic. Man. 11-12) of them: Italian (i.e. Sulla’s second civil war), Sicilian, African (these two being the continuation of the first one), Transalpine, Spanish, servile war (i.e. the war with Spartacus), and naval war (the war against pirates). Cicero briefly reminded his audience of the course of each of these wars and emphasized Pompey’s stunning successes. All this led to the presentation of Pompey as the most eminent commander in Roman history (Cic. Man. 10.27-28). In addition to his extraordinary achievements Cicero also praises Pompey’s virtues: ‘(…) the divine wisdom and extraordinary valour (Cic. Man. 4.10), a man of such moderation, such mildness, such humanity (Cic. Man. 5.13), knowledge of military affairs, valour, authority and good fortune (Cic. Man. 10.27), industry in business, fortitude amid dangers, energy in acting, rapidity in executing, wisdom in foreseeing (Cic. Man. 11.29), the incorruptibility of generals! How great should be their moderation in everything! How perfect their good faith! How universal should be their affability! how brilliant their genius! how tender their humanity! (Cic. Man. 13.36)’.13 All these qualities of Pompey would not, however, translate into success without the tender care of Felicitas or Fortuna. Giving back voice to Cicero: ‘For my judgement is this, that very often commands have been conferred upon, and armies have been entrusted to Maximus, to Marcellus, to Scipio, to Marius, and to other great generals, not only on account of their valour, but also on account of their good fortune. For there has been, in truth, in the case of some most illustrious men, good fortune added as some contribution of the gods to their honour and glory, and as a means of performing mighty achievements. (...) I will only say this, most briefly, —that no one has ever been so impudent as to dare in silence to wish for so many and such great favours as the immortal gods have showered upon Cnaeus Pompeius (Cic. Man. 16.47-48).14 Cicero did not mention Alexander the Great, confining his list to the greatest Roman generals in history. Nonetheless if we speak of Fortune (or Tyche to be more precise) the Macedonian king comes to mind somewhat automatically. Not coincidentally, Plutarch opened his On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander with these words: ‘This is Fortune’s discourse, who declares that Alexander is her own characteristic handiwork, and hers alone’ (Plut. M. Tullius Cicero, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, trans. Ch. D. Yonge, London 1856. 14 M. Tullius Cicero, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, trans. Ch. D. Yonge, London 1856. 13 134 K. Kopij Mor. 326D).15 However, it has to be stressed that in the end Plutarch gave priority to Alexander’s virtue (cf. Stewart 1993, 17-19). Nonetheless, Alexander became associated with Tyche right after his death in both in political (Stewart 1993, 260-261) and philosophical contexts (Stewart 1993, 10-21). As we can see, in his speech Cicero also referred to Fortuna/Felicitas.16 Moreover, he stressed the young age at which Pompey answered the call of the fatherland ‘at a most critical time of the republic’ (Cic. Man. 27.61).17 Pompey’s young age may have been reminiscent of Alexander the Great. Nonetheless, the name of the king is never mentioned. Was it only the result of ambiguity of Alexander’s image in Rome and therefore an unwillingness to arouse any controversy, or the fact that Pompey had not been engaged in imitatio Alexandri at this point in his career? De imperio Cn. Pompei is the first testimony to the new theme in Pompey’s propaganda: the link between his own successes and the condition of the whole state (Kopij 2017, 276-277) fully exploited in the 50s and 40s (Kopij 2017, 326-328). It is, then, possible that imitatio Alexandri was proposed as an eastern counterpart of this princeps senatus theme exploited in Rome. It was definitely more compelling to the Hellenized inhabitants of the theatre of Pompey’s eastern campaign – especially when we take into account that he defeated another imitator of Alexander – but at the same time similar in essence. It is highly probable that the coherent picture of Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri presented in Theophanes’ biography was a source of information for later writers. Conclusion All this evidence shows that Pompey was indeed involved in imitatio Alexandri. He wanted to be seen as a conqueror who had reached the borders of oikumene (Kühnen 2008, 72; cf. Diod. 40.4). However, two issues remain controversial: first, when exactly did he start to imitate Alexander? and second, was his image as the Roman Alexander public-oriented or was it limited only to the inhabitants of the East? As for the former there are two possibilities. Either Pompey started to imitate Alexander at the beginning Plutarch, Moralia vol. IV, trans. F. C. Babbitt. Harvard 1936. 16 Later Pompey included an altar or a shrine of Felicitas in his theatre complex (CIL I.244; CIL I.277; more with additional bibliography, cf. Kopij 2010, 168, 170-171) stressing his affection for the goddess. 17 M. Tullius Cicero, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, trans. Ch. D. Yonge, London 1856. 15 16 When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 135 of his political career in the 80s, or only during his eastern campaigns. Both Plutarch and Sallust argue that the general had looked up to Alexander since his youth. However, Plutarch is not reliable in terms of references to the Macedonian, since in his writings he used him as a point of reference. Although Sallust, as a contemporary, seems more trustworthy, he tended to mix chronologies. Furthermore, being a partisan of the Caesar, he was unfavourably disposed towards Pompey. This could have resulted in attempts to ridicule the general. Although it may be true that Pompey as a young man tried to model himself after Alexander and, when he realised that it was bringing more harm than good, abandoned this image, there is no doubt that he fully engaged in imitatio Alexandri only after sailing East to fight the pirates and then Mithridates. We have to keep in mind that the Romans had an ambiguous picture of Alexander, therefore showing oneself as his Roman ‘embodiment’ could be met with accusations of the pursuit of autocracy. Pompey could not afford this, especially in the 70s, when he repeatedly used ‘unconstitutional’ means to reach his goals, which met with the disapproval of the senators. In the East, however, the Macedonian king was still a point of reference both for the inhabitants and local rulers. Mithridates was the most recent example of this (Kühnen 2008, 63). References to Alexander were not only beneficial, but in some cases necessary. Theophanes did not as much create Pompey’s image as the Roman Alexander, as he used the existing tendencies of the natives to compare the strongest king or general to the Macedonian. Pompey did not oppose this. On the contrary, he encouraged it. However, he probably wanted to limit it to the East as much as possible, in order to avoid being ridiculed or seen as a tyrant with ambitions to be king of the Romans. Abbreviations CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CNH = Villaronga L. 1994. Corpus nummum Hispaniae ante Augusti aetatem. Madrid. RPC = Burnett A., Amandry M. and Ripollès P. P. (eds.). 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage. vol. 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC – AD 69). London, Paris. RRC = Crawford M. H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584015. 136 K. Kopij References Abascal J. M. 2002. La fecha de la promoción colonial de Carthago Nova y sus repercusiones edilicias. Mastia 1, 21–44. Amela Valverde L. 2000. Las ciudades fundadas por Pompeyo Magno en Occidente. Pompaelo, Lugdunum Convenarum y Gerunda. Polis 12, 7–41. Amela Valverde L. 2001a. Inscripciones honoríficas dedicadas a Pompeyo Magno. Faventia 23/1, 87–102. Amela Valverde L. 2001b. El áureo de Cn. Pompeyo Magno (RRC 402), acuñado en Amisos (Ponto). GacNum 140, 5–13. Amela Valverde L. 2001c. La inscripción de Cupra Maritima, la colonia de Valentia y la lex plotia agraria. Saguntum 33, 65–74. Amela Valverde L. 2002a. Las clientelas de Cneo Pompeyo Magno en Hispania. Barcelona. Amela Valverde L. 2002b. Las emisiones de bronce con cabeza / proa de Arse-Saguntum: Una nota. GacNum 147, 3–14. Amela Valverde L. 2010. El áureo de Cn. Pompeyo Magno (RRC 402/1). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie II, Historia Antigua 23, 205–216, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.5944/etfii.23.2010.1766. Amela Valverde L. 2017. Las emisiones romanes Pompeyanas de Hispania. Barcelona. Antela-Bernárdez B. 2006. From Alexander to Augustus: Imperialism, war and society in the Hellenism. In T. Ñaco del Hoyo and I. Arrayás Morales (eds.), War and Territory in the Roman World / Guerra y territorio en el mundo romano, 31–40. Oxford. Badian E. 1958. Foreign Clientelae (264–70 B.C.). Oxford. Badian E. 1976. Das Bildnis Alexanders d.Gr. auf antiken Münzen. Diskussionsbeitrag. In E. Badian (ed.) Alexandre le Grand: image et réalité, (Entretiens Hardt 22). 271–274. Geneve, Beltrán Lloris F. and Pina Polo F. 1994. Roma y los Pirineos: la formación de una frontera. Chiron 24, 103–129. Boschung D. 1986. Überlegungen zum Liciniergrab. JDAI 101, 257–287. Breglia L. P. D. 1972. La provincia di Cilicia e gli ordinamenti di Pompeo. RAAN 47, 327–387. Brunt P. A. 1971. Italian manpower 225 B.C. – A.D. 14. Oxford, [on-line] http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.01427.0001.001. Buschor E. 1949. Das hellenistische Bildnis. Münich. Cesano S. L. 1942. I Fasti dell Repubblica Romana sulla moneta di Roma. (SdN 1 fasc.2). Roma. When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 137 Dreizehnter A. 1975. Pompeius als Städtegründer. Chiron 5, 213–245. Ebel Ch. 1975. Pompey’s organization of Transalpina. Phoenix 29, 358– 373, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.2307/1087281. Esch T. 2011. Zur kommunalen Neuordnung Kleinasiens durch Pompeius: Kilikia Pedias und Pontos – Ein Vergleich. In E. Schwertheim (ed.), Studien zum antiken Kleinasien VII (Asia Minor Studien 66). 35–96. Bonn. Esteve Forriol J. 1978. Valencia, fundación romana. Valencia. Fulińska A. 2015. Nowy Aleksander. Ikonografia i legenda Mitrydatesa VI Eupatora. Kraków. Giuliani L. 1986. Bildnis und Botschaft. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der römischen Republik. Frankfurt. Green P. 1978. Caesar and Alexander: aemulatio, imitatio, comparatio. AJAH 3, 1–26. Gruen E. S. 1998. Rome and the myth of Alexander. In T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, C. E. V. Nixon and A. M. Nobbs (eds.), Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 1: The Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome, 178–191. Grand Rapids. Hatt J. J. 1966. Histoire de la Gaule Romaine (120 avant J.-C. - 451 aprés J.-C.). Colonisation ou colonialisme?. Paris. Hölscher T. 2004. Provokation und Transgression als politisches Habitus in der späten römischen Republik. MDAI(R) 111, 83–106. Johansen F. 1977. Ritratti antichi di Cicerone e Pompeo Magno, AnalRom 8, 39–69. Johansen F. 1994. Roman portraits: Catalogue, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, vol. 1. Copenhagen. Junker K. 2007. Die Porträts des Pompeius Magnus und die mimetische Option. MDAI(R) 113, 69–94. de Kersauson K. 1996. Un portrait de Pompée le Grand dans les collections du Louvre. Revue du Louvre et des musees de France 46/1, 39–44. Kopij K. 2010. Opera Pompei and the theology of victory. SAAC 14, 167– 178. Kopij K. 2016. The context and dating of the Pompey’s aureus (RRC 402). NumAntCl 45, 109–127. Kopij K. 2017. Auctoritas et dignitas: studium prestiżu i propagandy w okresie późnej Republiki Rzymskiej na przykładzie rodu Pompejuszy (gens Pompeia Magna) w świetle źródeł archeologicznych i pisanych. Kraków, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.556069. Kühnen A. 2008. Die Imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik (1. Jh. v. Chr. - 3. Jh. n. Chr.). Münster. 138 K. Kopij Kyparissis N. and Peek W. 1941. Attische Urkunden. AM 66, 218–239. La Rocca E. 1987-1988. Pompeo Magno ‘Novus Neptunus’. BCAR 92, 265–292. Leach J. 1978. Pompey the Great. London. Mader G. 2006. Triumphal elephants and political circus at Plutarch, Pomp. 14.6. CW 99/4, 397-403, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.2307/4353063. Magie D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor: to the End of the Third Century After Christ. Princeton. Martin J. D. 1998. Did Pompey engaged in imitatici Alexandri? In C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 9, 23–51. Brussels. Mezquíriz Irujo M. Á. 1966. Excavación estratigráfica en Pamplona (Campaña 1965). In J. M. de Motes (ed.), Problemas de la prehistoria y de la etnología vasca, 165–168. Pamplona. Michel D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius: archäologische Untersuchungen. (Collection Latomus 94). Brussels. Olshausen E., Biller J. 1984. Historisch-geographische Aspekte der Geschichte des Pontischen und Armenischen Reiches 1. Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie von Pontos unter den Mithridatiden. Wiesbaden. Ortiz de Zárate S. C. 1996. Los gentilicios hispanorromanos de Celtiberia y su expresión social. HispAnt 20, 149–170. Pena Gimeno M. J. 1989. Consideraciones sobre el estatuto jurídico de Valentia. Saguntum 22, 303–318. Poulsen V. H. 1948. A note on the Licinian tomb. JWalt 11, 8–13. Poulsen F. 1951. Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Ribera i Lacomba A. and Calvo Galvez M. 1995. La primera evidencia arqueológica de la destrucción de Valentia por Pompeyo. JRA 8, 19–40, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400015956. Rivet A. L. 1988. Gallia Narbonensis. Southern Gaul in Roman Times. London. Roldán Hervás J. M. 1972. El elemento indígena en las guerras civiles en Hispania: aspectos sociales. HispAnt 2, 77–124. Schweitzer B. 1947. Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik. Leipzig. Spranger P. P. 1958. Der Große. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des historischen Beinamens in der Antike. Saeculum 9, 22–58, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.7788/saeculum.1958.9.jg.22. When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? 139 Stewart A. 1993. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics. (Hellenistic Culture and Society 11). Berkeley. Syme R. 1964. Sallust. (Sather Classical Lectures 33). Berkeley, Los Angeles. Trunk M. 2008. Studien zur Ikonographie des Pompeius Magnus – die numismatischen und glyptischen Quellen. JDAI 123, 101–170. Tsirkim Yu. B. 1981. The south of Spain in the civil war of 40-45 BC. ArchEsp, 54, 91–100. Villaronga L. 1979. Numismática antigua de Hispania: Iniciación a su estudio. Barcelona. Vollenweider M.-L. 1955. Verwendung und Bedeutung der Porträtgemmen für das politische Leben der römischen Republik, MusHelv 12/2, 96–111. Watkins T. H. 1979. Roman Citizen Colonies and Italic Right. Roman citizen colonies and Italic right. In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, (Collection Latomus 164). 59-99. Brussels. Weippert O. 1972. Alexander-Imitatio und römische Politik in republik-anischer Zeit. Würzburg. Welles C. B. 1965. Alexander’s historical achievement. G&R 12, 216–229, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500015370. Ziegler R. 1993. Ären kilikischen Städte und Politik des Pompeius in Südostkleinasien. Tyche 8, 203–219. Kamil Kopij Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian Univeristy [email protected] PLATE 1 K. Kopij Pl. 1: 1 – Pompey the Great, marble, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Kopenhagen, Inv. No. 733, photo Gunnar Bach Pedersen, Public Domain Pl. 1: 2 – Alexander the Great, marble, The British Musuem, London, Reg. No. 1872,0515.1 ©The Trustees of the British Museum Pl. 1: 3 – Pompey the Great, intaglio, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Inv. No. FG6536, with permission from the Museum Pl. 1: 4 – Aureus of Pompey the Great (RRC 402), The British Musuem, London, Reg. No. 1867,0101.584, ©The Trustees of the British Museum When did Pompey The Great engage in his Imitatio Alexandri? PLATE 2 Pl. 2: 1 – Map of towns founded by Pompey and his possible foundations in Spain and Gaul Pl. 2: 2 – Map of towns founded by Pompey in Asia Minor: a – cities founded by Pompey; b – possible locations of Megapolis; c – ‘Pirate’ cities of Pompey S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Alexis Bonnefoy, Michel Feugère Lyon HERMÈS DIONYSOPHORE : LE BRONZE LORMIER Abstract: The ‘Lormier bronze’, named after its earliest known owner, is an exceptional statuette made of copper alloy. It is remarkable, both by its subject and its style, of very fine quality; but also by its state of conservation, namely its gilding, which allows us to contemplate, for once, such a statuette close to its original aspect. The iconography, rather rare in the field of small bronze figurines, clearly derives from the large statuary and illustrates a little-known episode of the Graeco-Roman mythology. Through the diverse possible models and their repercussion in the ‘minor arts’, the article allows to place this work in the Graeco-Roman production by following, in its main lines, the long way going from the original work to the series crafts, sometimes, as here, of high quality. Keywords: iconography; statuette; figurine; bronze; Hermes; Mercury; Dionysos; Bacchus; Dionysophoros Une figurine de bronze doré, provenant de l’ancienne collection Charles Lormier (Rouen, 1825-1900), est récemment apparue sur le marché des antiquités et nous a été soumise pour étude. L’objet appartient à un marchand parisien de la galerie La Reine Margot ; auparavant, il avait été la propriété de Michel de Bry qui l’avait acquis en 1967 auprès de Marguerite Mangin, fondatrice de la même galerie. Haute de 165mm, c’est une statuette en fonte pleine, figurant Hermès portant Dionysos enfant, dont nous décrirons les caractéristiques morphologiques, techniques et stylistiques1. Un examen Nous remercions M. Cohen (Galerie « La Reine Margot » à Paris) ainsi que M. Piot, qui nous ont accordé toutes facilités pour effectuer l’étude de ce bronze à Lyon ; les données 1 DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.08 144 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère rapide ayant permis de montrer la rareté de ce thème iconographique dans le domaine des bronzes figurés, il nous a semblé nécessaire d’élargir notre analyse pour replacer cette série de figurines dans le corpus des sculptures figurant Hermès Dionysophore. C’est à ce voyage, riche en découvertes de toutes sortes que, d’escales en détours, nous invitons nos lecteurs à nous accompagner. Description du bronze Lormier Le personnage apparaît sous la forme d’un homme juvénile, au corps athlétique et massif, nu à l’exception d’une chlamyde disposée en sautoir : posé sur l’épaule gauche, le vêtement tombe sur le dos avant de passer sous l’aisselle puis sur l’avant-bras hors duquel il est rejeté en un long pan, la pointe étant ici brisée (Pl. 1 : 1-2). Le personnage se tient debout, immobile, déhanché, en appui sur la jambe gauche. Le pied gauche, brisé au-dessus de la cheville, devait reposer à plat sur le sol ; juste au-dessus de la cassure apparaît l’arrachement d’un aileron. La jambe droite est quant à elle légèrement fléchie ; le pied, cambré, a été recollé à la cheville2 qui comportait également deux ailerons. La tête du personnage, tournée vers l’enfant, présente une chevelure courte et bouclée, dont un bandeau plus épais encadre un visage fin et souriant. Le nez est un peu usé et un manque de la dorure sur le front a été comblé lors d’une restauration récente (Pl. 1 : 3)3. Au sommet du crâne, un orifice de quelques millimètres semble avoir été anciennement bouché avec du bronze qui ne présente pas de dorure (Pl. 1 : 3). Le bras droit du personnage est plié, la main ramenée au niveau de la poitrine. Les doigts sont fortement dégradés, à l’exception du pouce et de l’index qui décrivent un geste indéterminé (Pl. 1 : 3). L’enfant, potelé, est assis dans la paume de la main gauche du personnage et tourné vers l’intérieur. La tête, orientée en direction de celle de l’homme, présente une chevelure courte formée de sillons et un visage peu visible. Les deux morphologiques s’appuient sur la notice de M. Kunicki, qui a expertisé la statuette pour le catalogue de la vente Pierre Bergé et Ass., Paris, 16 déc. 2015 (150, no. 220). De nombreux chercheurs et conservateurs de musées nous ont aidés par leurs avis toujours éclairants, notamment K. Chukalev (Musée de Sofia), S. Descamps (Musée du Louvre, Paris), E. Deschler-Erb (Köln), D. Desousa (Musée de Péronne), A. Kaufmann-Heinimann (Basel), Y. Labaune (Autun), Cl. Massard (Musée Rolin, Autun), O. Petit (Nancy), A. Rémy (Paris), M. Tonkova (Sofia), O. Tugusheva (Moscou), F. Williamson Price (New York), D. Zhuravlev (Moscou). 2 Restauration effectuée très récemment sur demande de la galerie. 3 Idem. Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 145 bras sont pliés et dégagés du corps : le gauche est brisé au niveau du coude ; le droit présente une petite main dressée et totalement ouverte. Une figurine dorée La dorure très bien conservée est sans doute le premier trait remarquable de la figurine pour qui l’examine en premier lieu. Sur un objet en alliage cuivreux ayant séjourné dans le sol, la fine couche d’or déposée sur la surface est soumise à rude épreuve, bien que ne se corrodant pas elle-même. Ce sont les échanges physico-chimiques entre le noyau cuivreux et le milieu extérieur qui, passant à travers l’or, peuvent détériorer cette fine couche ou même la faire disparaître en grande partie. La conservation de la dorure, sur le bronze Lormier, correspond à ce qu’on peut attendre d’un objet ayant séjourné dans le sol, mais ce qui en subsiste témoigne d’un travail d’excellente qualité, adapté à un objet de fabrication soignée. Deux techniques de dorure sont attestées dans l’Antiquité (Kluge 1927, 178-185). La plus ancienne consiste à battre l’or (entre des feuilles de parchemin, dit Pline l’Ancien, XXXIII, 19) jusqu’à obtenir des feuilles extrêmement fines, de quelques centièmes de millimètres. Ces feuilles sont ensuite appliquées sur l’objet et intégrées, par polissage manuel, à la surface de l’alliage. La seconde technique, plus récente, repose sur la faculté du mercure à dissoudre l’or. L’amalgame ainsi obtenu, même à température ambiante, peut être facilement déposé sur les zones à dorer. L’évaporation du mercure, par chauffage, laisse sur l’emplacement traité une très fine couche d’or. Dorure à la feuille et dorure au feu ne se distinguent pas toujours facilement à l’œil nu, même si la couche déposée à l’aide d’amalgame tend à être plus fine que celle d’une dorure à la feuille, avec laquelle des superpositions de feuilles peuvent rester apparentes (GiumliaMair et Rubinich 2002). La statuaire publique, de même que les éléments de décor architectural exposés en plein air, tendent à faire un large usage de la dorure. Sur les objets domestiques, cultuels ou personnels, cette technique est moins utilisée et sert alors à mettre en valeur un objet semi-précieux plus qu’à le protéger des éléments. Là encore il faut souligner qu’une dorure peut en grande partie disparaître du fait de la corrosion, comme on le voit parfois (Weißenburg). Les sujets des bronzes dorés sont très variés, mais si on se limite aux figurines qui ne sont ni des appliques, ni des éléments d’un groupe plus important – autant qu’on puisse en juger – leurs caractéristiques communes sont une taille au-dessus de la moyenne des statuettes et un style souvent très soigné. 146 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Un remarquable Centaure de Sarmizegetusa, très incomplet, atteint encore 36cm ; il est considéré par E. B. Thomas comme une œuvre hellénistique de grande qualité (Thomas 1988). Le Génie panthée du trésor du temple de Weißenburg mesure 23.6cm (Kellner et Zahlhaas 1993, 56-57, n° 13, pls. 40-42), une Minerve d’Ohaba-Bălăneşti en Roumanie, 21cm (Petculescu 2003, 110, n° 74), un dieu aquatique du Musée de Haguenau 21.5cm (Braemer 1963, n° 577). A Bavay, un Mercure musculeux, aujourd’hui au Musée de Mougins, frappe également par le soin apporté à son anatomie. Même si des figurines plus petites et moins soignées sont occasionnellement dorées, il est clair qu’une dorure fait partie des critères techniques fréquemment associés à des œuvres d’art, bien différentes des productions destinées aux cultes domestiques des classes moyennes. Etude iconographique Le schéma iconographique et les ailerons aux chevilles du personnage permettent de reconnaître dans ce groupe Hermès-Mercure portant DionysosBacchus. Ce schéma tire son origine de la mythologie entourant la naissance du dieu, qui connaît diverses variantes. La version la plus accréditée fait de Dionysos le fruit d’une union adultérine entre Zeus et la mortelle Sémélé, fille de Cadmos, roi et fondateur de Thèbes. Le maître de l’Olympe, qui avait promis à Sémélé d’exaucer tous ses vœux, est contraint de se dévoiler à elle lorsque celle-ci, lasse de s’unir à lui dans l’obscurité, demande à le contempler : elle meurt immédiatement du coup de foudre. Zeus extrait alors de sa mère le bébé qu’il dépose dans sa propre cuisse jusqu’à ce que l’enfant vienne au monde. Une fois né, Dionysos est confié à sa tante Ino, femme du roi Athamas ; mais Héra, jalouse de l’enfant, les frappe tous les deux de folie. Dionysos est remis à Hermès pour qu’il l’emmène à Nysa, lieu mystérieux où il est élevé par des nymphes et Silène. De ce voyage découlent les nombreuses représentations figurant Dionysos transporté par Hermès, du moment où celui-ci reçoit l’enfant à celui où il le remet à une nymphe. Particulièrement abondantes et présentes sur des supports divers, elles ont connu une certaine faveur tout au long de l’Antiquité. Petite plastique en bronze et grande statuaire représentant Hermès Dionysophore A l’heure actuelle, ce sont seulement dix figurines en bronze représentant Hermès Dionysophore qui sont connues – le bronze Lormier Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 147 inclus. Avant de procéder à leur analyse, en particulier dans la perspective de mieux comprendre le bronze Lormier, il est nécessaire d’en proposer une description. Il s’agit en premier lieu d’une statuette découverte à Tell Moqdam en Egypte (Pl. 2 : 1) (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 398). Datée de l’époque hellénistique, et peut-être plus précisément du IIIe s. av. J.-C., elle figure Hermès debout, légèrement déhanché à gauche, la jambe gauche en arrière et la tête tournée vers la droite. Selon G. Siebert, la représentation relève de la tradition lysippique caractérisée par des ailerons qui émergent de la chevelure courte et bouclée, un pétale égyptien qui se dresse sur le front et des ailerons aux chevilles. Le dieu tient dans la main droite, contre son bras pendant le long du corps, une corne d’abondance dont il ne reste que l’extrémité. Une chlamyde, agrafée sur l’épaule droite, couvre une partie du torse ainsi que l’épaule et le bras gauches du dieu. L’extrémité du vêtement est tirée par la main gauche, formant ainsi un creux dans lequel on suppose que Dionysos enfant était assis. P. Perdrizet (1911, 30-31, n° 40) signale qu’à l’origine la statuette reposait sur l’extrémité d’une feuille ou d’un pétale de fleur ouverte, encore présente sous les pieds du dieu. Une autre figurine est conservée au musée de Sofia et a été découverte dans la cité d’Oescus, en Mésie (Pl. 2 : 2) (actuelle Gigen, en Bulgarie ; Reinach 1930, 30, n° 6 ; Ilieva 2015, 44-45). Hermès apparaît debout, légèrement déhanché à droite. Il porte là aussi des ailerons aux chevilles. Sa chevelure, courte et bouclée, est surmontée d’un pétase ailé. Le bras droit d’Hermès, dont manque la main, repose le long du corps. Le dieu porte une chlamyde qui couvre l’épaule gauche et retombe à l’extérieur du bras gauche qui supporte Dionysos assis. Celui-ci tient dans la main droite une petite grappe de raisin et dans la main gauche, selon Ch. Picard (1954, 264, n. 1), le thyrse. Une statuette acquise en 2009 d’une ancienne collection privée allemande et mise en vente par Royal-Athena Galleries (Eisenberg 2014, n° 32), datée des deux premiers siècles ap. J.-C., présente une caractéristique unique particulièrement intéressante : la présence d’un support conservé, sous la forme d’une colonnette (Pl. 2 : 3). Hermès, debout, déhanché à droite, porte une chlamyde sur l’épaule tombant en sautoir. Sa chevelure, courte et bouclée, est surmontée d’ailerons et d’une couronne décorée d’un pétale égyptien. Dans la main droite, le bras pendant le long du corps, il tient verticalement le caducée. Dans sa main gauche, supporté par un pilier, il tient le petit Dionysos retourné vers l’arrière, le bras droit tendu en avant. 148 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Au Louvre, une figurine montre Hermès debout, légèrement déhanché à droite, la tête tournée à gauche, le bras droit brisé (Pl. 2 : 4) (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521, n° 252). La chevelure semble avoir porté un bandeau ou une couronne disparue. Le dieu est vêtu d’une chlamyde, agrafée sur l’épaule droite, qui couvre l’épaule et le bras gauches sur lequel repose Dionysos assis, les deux bras levés en l’air. Ch. Picard (1954, 263264) suggère une datation de la fin de l’époque hellénistique. En revanche, E. Simon la situe à l’époque impériale. Une figurine trouvée à Marché-Allouarde, près de Roye (80) et conservée au musée de Péronne (80) représente Hermès debout, déhanché à gauche, entièrement nu, la jambe droite brisée après le genou (Pl. 3 : 1) (Siebert 1990, 321, no. 399). La tête, tournée à gauche, porte une chevelure aplatie composée de mèches ondulantes. Sur le bras gauche est assis Dionysos, les jambes couvertes jusqu’aux pieds d’un vêtement. L’enfant tient dans sa main gauche un objet indéterminé, peut-être un hochet ou une petite patère, tandis que de la droite, le bras tendu, il essaie d’attraper le caducée, disparu, que tenait Hermès dans sa main droite, levée à hauteur de poitrine. Il faut noter la présence d’une marque étrange en plein centre de la poitrine d’Hermès. Elle demeure difficile à interpréter mais pourrait constituer la trace de l’arrachage de l’objet que tenait le dieu. G. Siebert inscrit en outre cette réalisation dans la tradition hellénistique et souligne sa morphologie praxitélienne. La statuette mise au jour à Baden en Suisse (et non Vindonissa comme l’indique S. Reinach4), conservée au musée de Zurich, également d’inspiration praxitélienne, montre Hermès debout, fortement déhanché à droite, le bras droit, dont la main est brisée, le long du corps (Pl. 3 : 2) (Reinach 1908, 173, n° 3). La tête, tournée à droite, est surmontée de deux ailerons. Hermès porte la chlamyde pliée et posée sur l’épaule gauche. Le vêtement passe sous l’aisselle du dieu puis sur son bras gauche hors duquel il est rejeté, tombant en un long pan. Dionysos est assis sur le bras gauche d’Hermès et lève son bras droit ainsi que sa tête en direction de celle du dieu. Un bronze découvert à Champdôtre-lès-Auxonne (21) est conservé au musée Rolin d’Autun (71) (Pl. 3 : 3) (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 458). Là encore, c’est le modèle praxitélien qui sert de référence à cette figurine considérée comme gallo-romaine, bien que Ch. Picard (1954, 263264) la date de la fin de l’époque hellénistique. Hermès apparaît debout, déhanché à droite, la tête tournée à gauche recouverte d’un pétase ailé dont 4 Précision due à l’amabilité de A. Kaufmann-Heinimann et de E. Deschler-Erb. Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 149 il manque l’aileron gauche. Une chlamyde, agrafée sur l’épaule droite, couvre une partie du torse ainsi que l’épaule et le bras gauches, avant de retomber en un long pan. Dans sa main droite, levée à hauteur de sa tempe, Hermès tient une grosse grappe de raisin qui attire la convoitise de Dionysos assis au creux du bras gauche. Dans la main gauche, Hermès tient un objet indéterminé considéré par certains comme une bourse (Lebel et Boucher 1975, 54, n° 77). Si on se réfère à l’historiographie ancienne, comme au catalogue de S. Reinach (1894, 78, n° 67), il est indiqué que des accidents ont modifié certains traits de la statuette : c’est le cas de la position de Dionysos dont Hermès tient les pieds dans la main gauche. De même, un choc a modifié la disposition du pan de la chlamyde, initialement droit. Une figurine, connue uniquement par la photographie qu’en donne I. Manfrini-Aragno (1987, fig. 323), provient de la collection J. Ternach et aurait été conservée au William Hayes Ackland Memorial Center, aux Etats-Unis (Manfrini-Aragno 1987, 150). Hermès apparaît debout, déhanché à droite, la chlamyde agrafée sur l’épaule droite. Dionysos, qu’il tient dans sa main gauche et serré contre son flanc, le regarde. Hermès quant à lui à la tête tournée vers l’enfant mais ne semble pas le regarder (Pl. 4 : 2). Tous les deux ont une chevelure bouclée. Le bras droit d’Hermès est brisé, ne permettant pas de juger sa position. Enfin, une dernière statuette peut être évoquée : elle montre la grande faveur qu’a connue ce type iconographique dans l’Antiquité. Il s’agit en effet d’une statuette conservée au musée de Pristina au Kosovo, datée des IIe-IIIe s. ap. J.-C. (Pl. 4 : 1) (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521, n° 253 ; Dobruna-Salihu 2010, 154). On y voir Hermès, debout, déhanché à droite, vêtu d’une chlamyde couvrant son côté gauche et portant un pétase surmonté de deux grands et larges ailerons. Le bras droit, relâché le long du corps, vient au contact du museau d’un petit bélier au pied duquel se tient un autre animal indéterminé. Le bras gauche du dieu passe quant à lui en accolade sur les épaules d’un petit Dionysos (ou Hadès-Pluton : Popović 1969, 89, n° 88), enveloppé dans la chlamyde du dieu et posé sur un pilier ou sur un tronc. Dans la main gauche, Hermès tient le caducée à l’horizontale, la partie supérieure ramenée contre Dionysos. Au pied du pilier se dresse un coq éployé. L’aspect général du groupe, très hiératique et tubulaire, ainsi que les traits grossiers soulignent bien le caractère provincial de cette réalisation mais la reprise du modèle de Praxitèle montre aussi toute sa vivacité. 150 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère L’existence d’un petit groupe de figurines présentant un même sujet selon un schéma global similaire, invite à supposer l’existence d’un modèle commun qui appartiendrait à la grande statuaire classique. Dans le cas d’Hermès Dionysophore, celui-ci est bien connu puisqu’il s’agit de l’œuvre de Praxitèle, découverte et conservée à Olympie (Pl. 5 : 1) (Rolley 1999, 250-254). Si des doutes subsistent quant à la datation de l’exemplaire connu – original des années 330 av. J.-C. ou copie du début de l’époque impériale ? – elle permet néanmoins de déterminer le type praxitélien. Hermès se présente debout, nu à l’exception de sandales, de face et déhanché à droite. Son visage est légèrement souriant et sa chevelure courte et bouclée. Il s’appuie du coude gauche sur un tronc d’arbre recouvert d’une draperie longue et ample, tombant en de nombreux plis. Le dieu tient au creux de son bras gauche Dionysos assis qui essaie d’attraper ce qu’Hermès tient dans sa main droite, levée au niveau de sa tête : sans doute une grappe de raisin, comme l’historiographie la restitue d’après une fresque de la Casa del Naviglio à Pompéi et certaines figurines en bronze. Dans la main gauche, Hermès tenait probablement un caducée disparu. Il faut ajouter à ce modèle l’œuvre du bronzier athénien Céphisodote l’Ancien, considéré comme le père de Praxitèle. Cette statue, probablement en bronze mais disparue, est connue par un passage de Pline l’Ancien (XXXIV, 19, 87) mentionnant deux statues de Céphisodote dont l’une est celle de « Mercure nourrissant Liber Pater enfant ». Traditionnellement, on considère que deux monnaies en bronze d’époque impériale portent au revers une représentation de l’œuvre de Céphisodote : l’une de Marc-Aurèle frappée à Anchialos en Thrace et une autre, un peu plus tardive, émise à Pautalia, toujours en Thrace, sous Caracalla (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 392a-b). Ces deux monnaies portent au revers une représentation presque identique figurant Hermès debout, de trois-quarts, légèrement déhanché à droite, la tête tournée à gauche, en direction de Dionysos assis sur son bras gauche, posé sur une colonne (Pl. 5 : 2). Ces monnaies qui représentent peut-être l’œuvre de Céphisodote sont à rapprocher de l’image présente sur le manche d’une patère en argent conservée au musée de Turin et datée des deux premiers siècles ap. J.-C. (Pl. 5 : 3) (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 400). A l’extrémité de l’objet est figuré Hermès Dionysophore : debout, déhanché à gauche, de trois-quarts, il porte une chlamyde couvrant son côté gauche ainsi qu’un pétase ailé sur ses cheveux courts et bouclés. Il tient dans sa main droite, levée à hauteur de tête, une grappe de raisin qu’essaie de saisir le jeune Dionysos assis sur un pilier à la gauche d’Hermès. Ces représentations, qui donneraient à voir l’œuvre de Céphisodote, sont très proches de celle de Praxitèle. Cela amène Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 151 G. Siebert (1990, 321, n° 394) à envisager la possibilité qu’elles figurent plutôt la seconde, dans une version simplifiée. Autrement, on peut supposer que les deux réalisations n’aient pas présenté de différences notables, voire qu’elles étaient identiques, l’une en bronze et l’autre en marbre5. Quoi qu’il en soit, c’est bien l’œuvre de Praxitèle qui marque l’entrée du type d’Hermès Dionysophore dans le répertoire de la grande statuaire6. Partant de ce point de départ, d’autres œuvres de grande statuaire d’époque hellénistique et romaine ont repris le schéma général du modèle praxitélien tout en apportant des variations dans les détails. Ainsi, S. Reinach (1908, 173, n° 7 ; 1924, 77, n° 1) évoque deux statues d’Hermès Dionysophore accoudé à un pilier, dont il livre pour chacune une illustration. Au contraire, d’autres œuvres de grande statuaire, si elles correspondent au type du pédophore, se distinguent plus fortement des réalisations de Céphisodote et de Praxitèle. C’est le cas de la statue d’époque romaine découverte dans le théâtre de Minturnes et conservée au musée de Naples (Pl. 5 : 5) (Siebert 1900, 321, n° 395). En effet, l’œuvre montre un personnage juvénile debout, nu, au corps athlétique, fortement déhanché à droite avec des ailerons dans une chevelure courte et bouclée. Il tient au creux du bras gauche un enfant qui dirige sa tête et son bras droit en direction du visage du personnage ; l’enfant tient dans la main gauche, collée contre son flanc, une grappe de raisin. Le groupe s’appuie à droite à un tronc d’arbre. Un autre cas, d’époque romaine également, provient de Florence : il s’agit de l’Hermès Boboli, du nom du jardin où il est conservé (Pl. 5 : 6) (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 396). Le dieu est debout, déhanché à droite, vêtu d’une chlamyde agrafée sur l’épaule droite qui couvre le torse et l’épaule gauche avant de retomber en sautoir. Le cache-sexe, en forme de feuille d’acanthe, constitue assurément un ajout d’époque moderne. La chevelure d’Hermès, courte et bouclée, porte les restes d’ailerons. Le visage est tourné vers Dionysos, tenu assis dans la main droite ; l’enfant, qui regarde Hermès, écarte ses deux bras tendus vers l’avant. Dans la main gauche, Hermès tient le caducée qui repose sur G. Siebert (1990, 321, n° 393) ajoute à ce dossier un groupe très fragmentaire, daté du IIe s. ap. J.-C., découvert sur l’Agora d’Athènes. Il se demande s’il ne pourrait pas s’agir d’une copie inspirée de l’œuvre de Céphisodote. Toutefois, l’état de conservation de la statue rend toute supposition difficile. Par ailleurs, G. Siebert suggère également un parallèle avec une autre statue, lourdement restaurée, conservée au musée du Prado à Madrid. Cependant, tout rapprochement avec Hermès Dionysophore a depuis été évacué par les conservateurs, au profit d’un jeune orateur tenant un volumen. 6 Le motif d’Hermès Dionysophore était déjà présent dans l’iconographie grecque comme en atteste par exemple un cratère à figures rouges, daté de la seconde moitié du Ve s. av. J.-C. et exposé au musée Pouchkine de Moscou (Siebert 1990, 319, n° 365b). 5 152 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère l’avant-bras. A l’instar de la statue de Minturnes, Hermès est appuyé à droite sur un tronc d’arbre. Enfin, S. Reinach (1924, 77, n° 2) mentionne un groupe découvert à Agnano en Italie et conservé au musée des Thermes à Rome. Il s’agit d’Hermès debout, déhanché à droite, acéphale, vêtue d’une chlamyde agrafée sur l’épaule droite qui couvre le torse et l’épaule gauche au niveau de laquelle elle retombe en sautoir. Dans la saignée du bras droit, il tient le caducée. Le dieu appuie son avant-bras gauche contre ce qui semble être un tronc d’arbre biscornu et porte au creux de ce bras un enfant assis. Celui-ci agrippe la chlamyde de sa main droite au niveau du torse d’Hermès. Au pied du tronc d’arbre se tient un bélier, le regard tourné les personnages7. La petite plastique en bronze s’inscrit parfaitement dans ces productions qui prennent pour référence une œuvre de grande statuaire grecque classique tout en y apportant des changements plus ou moins marqués. C’est bien le cas pour le type d’Hermès Dionysophore comme le montre la diversité des statuettes décrites ci-dessus. Il s’agit là d’un paradigme bien connu : les artisans du bronze se fondent en effet souvent sur des représentations biaisées des statues, comme celles que portent des monnaies, ou bien élaborent leur œuvre en combinant plusieurs références. Analyse du bronze Lormier Le bronze Lormier ne fait pas exception et, à bien des égards, reprend les canons de la grande statuaire grecque classique. Parmi eux se trouvent tout d’abord la position debout et le déhanchement, bien que la pondération soit inversée par rapport à l’œuvre de Praxitèle (Pl. 5 : 1)) et les représentations supposées de celle de Céphisodote (Pl. 5 : 2), à l’exception de celle présente sur la patère de Turin (Pl. 5 : 3). Ces pondérations alternatives se retrouvent également parmi les autres figurines en bronze puisque si huit d’entre elles sont déhanchées à droite, une autre l’est à gauche, comme le bronze Lormier. Le déhanchement induit un appui sur une seule jambe dont le pied repose à plat. L’autre jambe est quant à elle légèrement fléchie et le pied, par conséquent, plus ou moins décollé du sol. Le bronze Lormier présente par ailleurs une plastique du corps très proche de celle des grandes œuvres de statuaire : la musculature est très marquée, en particulier pour la partie Pour achever ce recensement, signalons la statue d’Hermès Agoraios Dionysophore à Sparte, connue uniquement par la mention qu’en fait Pausanias (3.11.11) (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 397). Par ailleurs, l’historiographie ancienne porte à notre connaissance des fragments de statues pouvant être envisagées comme Hermès Dionysophore : Reinach 1924, 77, n° 3-4 ; Espérandieu 1931, 396, n° 629. Enfin, la statuaire provinciale n’est pas en reste, comme l’atteste une petite statue en grès découverte dans le mithraeum de Stockstadt-am-Main (Allemagne), construit au IIIe s. ap. J.-C. (Picard 1941, 273-274). 7 Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 153 supérieure du corps, à l’avant comme à l’arrière. Seules les statuettes de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1), d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2), de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et, dans une moindre mesure, du Louvre (Pl. 2 : 4) et de la collection J. Ternbach (Pl. 4 : 2) présentent une musculature aussi bien soulignée. En revanche, le bronze Lormier se distingue du type praxitélien par la position du bras droit. Toutefois, cet élément présente une forte variation comme l’attestent les autres exemples de petite plastique en bronze. En effet, seule la statuette de Champdôtre-lès-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3) reprend le modèle de Praxitèle, la main levée à hauteur de tête et tenant, de surcroît, une grappe de raisins. En revanche, les autres statuettes montrent une disposition variable, le plus généralement le long du corps, à l’instar des exemplaires de grande statutaire de Mintures ou de l’Hermès Boboli (Pl. 5 : 5-6). Au contraire, la tête du bronze Lormier s’inspire quant à elle du modèle praxitélien (Boucher 1976, 100). Il s’agit là du mode de représentation le plus fréquent que ce soit dans la grande statuaire – c’est celui adopté par l’Hermès de Praxitèle – ou la petite plastique en bronze. Dans le corpus, seuls les Hermès de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1), de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1) présentent un traitement différent : le premier semble barbu, mais les cheveux bouclés et courts, tandis que les deux autres, imberbes, ont une chevelure composée de mèches sinueuses et plates. Quant au visage, bien qu’il soit difficile de l’observer avec précision dans la mesure où il s’agit d’une partie souvent dégradée, il faut souligner la diversité des traits selon les artistes. Le bronze Lormier tend à se rapprocher, de ce point de vue-là, des visages fins et très travaillés des exemplaires de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 :1), de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et, en particulier, d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2). En ce qui concerne Dionysos, il est difficile d’observer son traitement général, comme nous venons de le faire pour Hermès ; en effet, sa petitesse ne permet pas un travail aussi précis. Toutefois, on peut noter son apparence potelée, caractéristique des représentations d’enfant. Elle se retrouve bien, pour la grande statuaire, dans les exemplaires de Minturnes et Boboli (Pl. 5 : 5-6), mais aussi dans l’ensemble des bronzes. Le Dionysos du bronze Lormier présente une chevelure traitée en mèches plates qu’on remarque aussi pour celui de la statuette de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1) et de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1). Les autres figurines, lorsque la chevelure est conservée, montrent une chevelure composée de boucles. Quant à la position, celle du Dionysos du bronze Lormier est la plus classique : assise et tournée vers Hermès. Seule la statuette de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) se distingue par le fait que Dionysos, certes assis au creux de la main d’Hermès, est tournée 154 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère vers l’arrière. Quant à celui de l’exemplaire de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1), il semble reposer, assis ou debout, sur un tronc d’arbre. Il est intéressant de remarquer que l’Hermès Lormier tient Dionysos au creux de sa main gauche, à bout de bras. Cette caractéristique se retrouve, autant qu’on puisse en juger, pour les bronzes de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3), de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1), de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2) et de la collection J. Ternbach (Pl. 4 : 2) ainsi que dans la grande statuaire, à travers l’Hermès de Minturnes et l’Hermès Boboli (Pl. 2 : 1-3). Dans les autres cas, Dionysos est sur l’avant-bras, conformément au modèle praxitélien (Pl. 5 : 1). D’un point de vue stylistique et plastique, le bronze Lormier tend donc à s’inscrire dans la tradition issue des modèles de grande statuaire classique. Toutefois, comme toute production de petite statuaire en bronze, il présente aussi des caractéristiques propres. Après avoir observé le schéma général et la plastique des corps, il faut s’intéresser aux accessoires. Le vêtement est important car il fait l’objet de variations qui tendent à distinguer les productions de leur référence. Ainsi, l’oeuvre de Praxitèle (Pl. 5 : 1) présente le vêtement posé sur le support qui soutient le bras gauche d’Hermès sur lequel repose Dionysos. En revanche, l’oeuvre de Céphisodote, telle qu’elle est restituée d’après les monnaies impériales (Pl. 5 : 2) est caractérisée par l’absence de chlamyde, à l’exception de sa représentation, supposée, sur la patère de Turin (Pl. 5 : 3). Sur cette dernière, le vêtement semble couvrir le côté gauche d’Hermès. Les productions d’époque romaine se détachent tout autant de ces modèles : l’Hermès de Minturnes est nu, tandis que l’Hermès Boboli porte une chlamyde agrafée sur l’épaule gauche et disposée en sautoir (Pl. 5 : 5-6). Les statuettes en bronze, quant à elles, sont tout aussi diverses sur ce point. L’exemplaire de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1) présente un Hermès nu, tandis que Dionysos a les jambes couvertes par un linge. On retrouve un schéma semblable dans le cas du bronze de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1), Hermès étant nu et Dionysos (debout ou assis) enveloppé dans la chlamyde. Toutefois, les autres statuettes montrent une disposition du vêtement plus classique tout en étant variée : chlamyde agrafée sur l’épaule droite et couvrant le côté gauche pour les Hermès de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1), du Louvres (Pl. 2 : 4), de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3) et de la collection J. Ternbach (Pl. 4 : 2) ; chlamyde posée sur l’épaule gauche et disposée en sautoir pour les bronzes d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2), de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3), de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2) et pour le bronze Lormier (Pl. 1 : 1). Ainsi, de ce point de vue, ce dernier présente une disposition classique mais qui le distingue toutefois de la grande statuaire antique. Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 155 La question des attributs est également importante. En effet, en présence de deux divinités majeures, nous pourrions nous attendre à une profusion d’attributs ; or il n’en est rien. Le seul attribut présent, pour le bronze Lormier, sont les ailerons, très dégradés, aux chevilles d’Hermès. Il faut tout de suite souligner que cet attribut n’est pas celui qui est privilégié par la grande statuaire figurant Hermès Dionysophore : ni l’oeuvre de Praxitèle, ni celle de Céphisodote, ni les productions postérieures (Hermès de Minturnes, Hermès Boboli), n’optent pour cette caractéristique (Pl. 5 : 1-3 et 5-6). Pour autant, les ailerons aux chevilles existent pour d’autres statues d’Hermès. Par ailleurs, c’est un attribut qu’on retrouve sur certains bronzes représentant Hermès Dionysophore : les exemplaires de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) et d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2). On peut s’interroger sur l’absence d’autres attributs : sont-ils réellement inexistants ou ont-ils disparu ? Pour répondre à cette question, il faut observer les attributs présents sur les oeuvres de grande statuaire et surtout sur les statuettes. Tout d’abord concernant Dionysos, l’attribut par excellence est bien entendu la grappe de raisin. Celle-ci peut-être soit tenue par Hermès, ce qu’on restitue pour l’oeuvre de Praxitèle et de Céphisodote (Pl. 5 : 1-3), soit par Dionysos lui-même comme c’est le cas de la statue de Minturnes (Pl. 5 : 5). Ces deux mêmes options se retrouvent dans la petite plastique de bronze : l’exemplaire de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3) est sur ce point tout à fait conforme au modèle praxitélien puisqu’Hermès tient une grappe dans sa main droite levée à hauteur de tête ; en revanche, c’est Dionysos qui tient la grappe dans sa main droite sur la statuette d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2) et possiblement dans sa main gauche sur l’exemplaire de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2). Les autres bronzes, quant à eux, ne présentent pas de grappe : elle est absente de manière certaine pour l’exemplaire de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3), de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1) et de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1), tandis que les dégradations des bronzes de Tell Modqam (Pl. 2 : 1) et du Louvre (Pl. 2 : 4) ne permettent pas d’en juger. Qu’en est-il du bronze Lormier ? Tout d’abord, s’il faut restituer une grappe, ce n’est pas dans les mains d’Hermès. En premier lieu parce que la gauche est occupée à porter Dionysos. Ensuite parce que le geste de la main droite ne permet pas d’imaginer qu’elle ait tenu une grappe de raisin. En effet, lorsque c’est le cas, comme pour l’exemplaire de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3), le schéma praxitélien est repris, ce que ne fait pas le bronze Lormier. De plus, une grappe, qu’elle soit tenue par Dionysos ou par Hermès l’est toujours à pleine main, et non par la tige. Or le geste de préhension, très resserré, effectué par l’Hermès Lormier, ne permet pas d’y insérer une grappe. Dionysos, quant à lui, n’a pas pu tenir une grappe dans la main droite dans la mesure où celle-ci, bien que 156 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère dégradée, semble en extension. En revanche, pour la main gauche, on ne peut en être certain puisque celle-ci a disparu. Toutefois, compte-tenu du très petit module de la main droite, on envisage mal comment l’artisan aurait pu lui faire tenir une grappe de raisin. Ainsi, il semble qu’il faille supposer que le bronze Lormier n’ait pas présenté de grappe, s’éloignant ainsi un peu plus des modèles classiques. Toutefois, la grappe n’est pas le seul attribut de Dionysos. En effet, si la grande statuaire d’Hermès Dionysophore ne semble présenter que celui-ci, la petite plastique en bronze en utilise d’autres. Sur l’exemplaire d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2), Dionysos tient ainsi, d’après Ch. Picard (1954, 264, n. 1), le thyrse. Le bronze de MarchéAllouarde montre Dionysos tenant un objet que nous interprétons comme un hochet (Pl. 3 : 1). Pour les mêmes raisons que la grappe de raisin, il ne nous semble pas possible de restituer de pareils attributs pour le bronze Lormier. Qu’en est-il à présent des attributs d’Hermès dont nous avons vu que le seul conservé sur le bronze Lormier sont les ailerons aux chevilles ? Plusieurs attributs sont utilisés par la grande statuaire et la petite plastique en bronze. Certaines restitutions proposent ainsi de placer un caducée disparu dans la main gauche de l’Hermès de Praxitèle (Rolley 1999, 250254). Si cette éventualité est sujette à discussion, le caducée n’en demeure pas moins un attribut privilégié comme en atteste les statuettes en bronze : on le retrouve sur l’exemplaire de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et celui de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1). On peut également le supposer pour les bronzes du Louvre (Pl. 2 : 4), dans la main gauche, de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1), dans la main droite, et possiblement de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3) dans la main gauche. Comme en attestent ces différents exemplaires, le caducée pouvait être soit coulé avec la statuette, soit constitué un élément rapporté. Dans la mesure où la main droite du bronze Lormier, la seule à avoir pu tenir un objet, est conservée et qu’elle ne présente pas les restes d’un caducée, c’est la deuxième éventualité qui doit être étudiée. Là encore, le geste précis de la main interdit d’imaginer qu’elle ait pu tenir un caducée, pour deux raisons. D’une part parce que le geste de préhension décrit par le pouce et l’index – les autres doigts étant dégradés – ne correspond pas à celui qui permettrait de tenir à pleine main un caducée dont le manche est cylindrique. D’autre part, la restitution d’un objet longiforme tenu dans cette main dont il épouserait la paume montre que celui-ci viendrait au contact du pectoral droit d’Hermès au lieu de passer au-dessus de l’épaule. Par conséquent, le bronze Lormier ne semble pas avoir eu recours au caducée pour permettre d’identifier Hermès. Pour les mêmes raisons, Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 157 il n’est pas envisageable qu’Hermès ait tenu une corne d’abondance comme c’est le cas de l’exemplaire de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1). Un autre attribut d’Hermès, souvent utilisé dans la petite statuaire en bronze, est la bourse. L’Hermès de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1) en tient une dans la main droite. Toutefois, là encore, il apparaît peu probable que l’Hermès Lormier en ait possédé une, non seulement parce que la bourse est généralement tenue à pleine main, mais aussi parce que dans ce cas, le bras pend le long du corps ou bien la bourse est présentée en avant. Il faut donc en conclure que le geste de l’Hermès Lormier se suffit à lui-même et qu’il ne faut pas chercher à restituer un attribut disparu. Aucune des œuvres de grande statuaire ou de petite plastique en bronze ne présente un geste similaire. En revanche, un parallèle peut être établi avec l’une des nombreuses représentations d’Hermès Dionysophore attestées sur des reliefs8. Le relief, découvert à Flemlingen en Allemagne et conservé au musée de Speyer (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VIII, 5969 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 466) (Pl. 4 : 3), présente Hermès debout, de face, une chlamyde posée couvrant son côté gauche. La tête, très dégradée, se prête difficilement à une analyse. Dionysos, porté dans la main gauche d’Hermès, tient dans la main droite un caducée dont l’extrémité repose dans le pli formé par la chlamyde. Au-dessus de l’épaule droite d’Hermès se tient un coq, sur un petit piédestal. Le geste que décrit le bras et la main d’Hermès évoque grandement celui du bronze Lormier : la main, ramenée devant le torse, semble effectuer un geste de préhension : le pouce et l’index, légèrement avancés se font face, tandis que les autres doigts sont recroquevillés. L’absence d’objets tenus par l’Hermès de Flemlingen, malgré la position curieuse de la main, tend à confirmer qu’il en était de même pour l’Hermès Lormier. Comment faut-il 8 Liste non exhaustive de ces reliefs : théâtre de Dionysos à Athènes (Pickard-Cambridge 1949, 256 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521, n° 254) ; parois et sarcophages des nécropoles romaines comme celle du Vatican (Gasparri 1986, 552, n° 141-142 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521, n° 255) ; relief de Hatrize (Espérandieu 1907-1938, V, 4413 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 460) ; de Godramstein (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VIII, 5908) ; de Flemlingen (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VIII, 5969 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 466) ; d’Augsbourg (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 467) ; de Carnuntum (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 464) ; de Lohr (Espérandieu 1907-1938, V, 4491 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 465) ; du Mont Hérapel (Espérandieu 1907-1938, V, 4471) ; d’Onsdorf (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VI, 5126 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 544, n° 463) ; de Niderbronn (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VII, 5639) ; de Gundershoffen (Espérandieu 19071938, VII, 5653) ; de Strasbourg (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VII, 5494) ; de Saint-Ingbert (Espérandieu 1907-1938, V, 4483) ; de Spachbach (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VII, 55569) ; de Wasenbourg (Espérandieu 1907-1938, VII, 5605). Pour une étude des reliefs de Gaule, voir Hatt 1967. 158 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère alors comprendre ce geste ? Trois solutions nous semblent envisageables : soit Hermès s’apprête à reprendre le caducée à Dionysos (à moins qu’il vienne de le lui remettre) ; soit il s’agit d’un geste dont le but est d’attirer l’attention du jeune dieu ; soit il ne consiste qu’en un geste de raffinement, sans signification particulière. Or on l’a vu, dans le cas du bronze Lormier, il est impossible de savoir si le jeune Dionysos tenait ou non un caducée car si cela ne semble pas être le cas dans la main droite, pleinement ouverte (à moins que le caducée n’y ait été accolé), en revanche la gauche est manquante. Toutefois, cette hypothèse apparaît comme peu vraisemblable dans la mesure où, dans tous les cas où le jeune Dionysos tient un caducée, il le fait avec la main droite, afin de s’aider du corps ou du vêtement d’Hermès. Ainsi, ce sont les deux dernières possibilités qu’il faut sans doute privilégier. La similitude entre deux gestes tendrait aussi à démontrer l’existence d’un modèle commun, assez bien diffusé dans le temps et dans l’espace. La question des attributs d’Hermès nécessite également de s’intéresser à la tête du dieu. En effet, celle-ci peut présenter plusieurs attributs, parmi lesquels : le pétase, souvent ailé, qu’on retrouve pour l’exemplaire d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2), de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3) et de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1) ; les ailerons dans les cheveux, comme les portent l’Hermès de Minturnes (Pl. 5 : 5), l’Hermès Boboli (Pl. 5 : 6), la statuette de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1), de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2) ; une couronne, comme c’est le cas pour le bronze de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) et du Louvre (Pl. 2 : 4) ; une pétale de lotus sur le front ou sur la tête, qu’on peut voir sur la statuette de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) et de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3). Sur ce point là encore, le bronze Lormier se distingue par l’absence de pareils attributs, en tout cas conservés. Cela n’est pourtant pas exceptionnel, car l’Hermès de Praxitèle a lui aussi la tête nue (Pl. 5 : 1). Toutefois, il faut se demander si des attributs de tête de l’Hermès Lormier ont pu exister ; en effet, des traces pourraient le suggérer. Parmi elles se trouve tout d’abord la marque d’altération en haut et au centre du front, redorée tout récemment9. Autant qu’on puisse en juger, il ne s’agit pas uniquement d’un éclat de la dorure, mais de ce qu’on pourrait qualifier d’arrachage, la zone semblant avoir perdu un peu de matière, produisant une légère dépression (Pl. 1 : 3). Dans ces conditions, on peut supposer qu’un élément saillant, fixé à cet endroit, a pu être arraché. Il pourrait s’agir d’un pétale de lotus, attribut parfois conféré à Hermès, comme en témoignent les statuettes de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) et de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3). Si dans le cas de cette dernière, le pétale est associé à une couronne, 9 Voir la description au début de cette étude. Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 159 installée sur la tête, la disposition est tout autre dans le premier cas. En effet, l’ornement floral, libre de tout support – il est simplement associé à des ailerons dans la chevelure –, est alors fixé à la partie supérieure et centrale du front. Un attribut comme celui-ci, brisé à sa base, aurait pu produire l’altération observée sur le bronze Lormier mais aucun autre argument ne vient étayer cette hypothèse. L’autre perturbation que nous remarquons sur la tête de la statuette est l’orifice présent au sommet du crâne et bouché postérieurement. Ce qui semble être un manque dans ce bouchon en bronze, sur la gauche de la statuette (Pl. 1 : 3), permet de voir une infime partie de l’orifice. D’après la forme du bouchage, celui-ci devait être circulaire. De plus, les vues de profil du dispositif (Pl. 1 : 3) montrent qu’il s’installe au sommet d’une protubérance conique, qui constitue une rupture dans la forme naturelle du crâne. Initialement, il faut donc supposer que le sommet de la tête présentait un trou circulaire, aux parois légèrement saillantes, dissimulé dans la chevelure. Ultérieurement, un petit bouchon de bronze, visiblement non doré, est venu sceller cet orifice et le cacher, comme en attestent les boucles grossièrement dessinées à sa surface. D’emblée, il faut préciser que la tête et le corps forment un tout homogène et que l’aménagement en question, quel qu’il soit, ne concernait que le sommet du crâne. Plusieurs explications peuvent être proposées. Tout d’abord celle d’une réparation d’atelier, un procédé – parfois appelé « réparure » pour le distinguer des interventions ultérieures – qui fait partie des modes de fabrication habituels d’un bronze figuré. Toutefois, ces interventions généralement très bien faites, invisibles à l’œil nu, ne sont souvent trahies que par leur patine différente de la surface adjacente. Il pourrait s’agir aussi d’un attribut disparu, en particulier de l’un des deux attributs de tête : le pétase (ailé ou non) ou les ailerons. Cette dernière possibilité semble devoir être évacuée : les ailerons, s’ils peuvent être rapportés et fichés à l’aide de petits tenons, ne sont en effet jamais regroupés au centre, mais disposés de manière symétrique de part et d’autre de l’axe médian de la tête. En revanche, on pourrait tout à fait imaginer un pétase, relié à la tête par un tenon fiché dans l’orifice et qui viendrait par ailleurs épouser la forme conique aplatie que décrit la tête à cet endroit. La technique, qui consiste à couler à part le pétase et à le souder ensuite au reste de la statuette est attesté par un certain nombre de figurines, dont certaines ont perdu leur pétase (Frel 1994, 179-180, n. 66). Toutefois, la documentation ne nous a pas permis d’observer sur ces exemplaires la présence ou non d’un orifice semblable à celui que possède l’Hermès Lormier. Il est cependant intéressant de noter que l’une des figurines, un Hermès assis du laraire de la Casa 160 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère degli Amorini dorati (Adamo-Muscettola 1985, 15, figs. 5 et 7), présente la même déformation du crâne observée sur l’Hermès Lormier, à laquelle semble s’adapter parfaitement le pétase. Par conséquent, même si d’autres hypothèses pourraient être avancées au sujet de ce dispositif (un percement lié à un changement de fonction de l’objet par exemple) il semble qu’il faille privilégier celui d’un pétase rapporté aujourd’hui disparu. L’orifice aurait été alors bouché ultérieurement pour le masquer, que ce soit à l’époque antique ou à l’époque moderne, même si son apparence patinée plaide en faveur de la première éventualité. Enfin, un dernier point doit être abordé concernant la restitution du bronze Lormier. En effet, l’une des caractéristiques des modèles de grande statuaire, en particulier celui de Praxitèle (Pl. 5 : 1) ou de Céphisodote (Pl. 5 : 2-3), est de figurer Hermès accoudé à un support, que ce soit une colonne, un pilier ou un tronc d’arbre. Certaines productions ultérieures, quant à elles, ont choisi de ne pas reprendre cet élément, se contentant d’un support plus court, uniquement présent pour des questions techniques (Hermès de Minturnes (Pl. 5 : 5), Hermès Boboli (Pl. 5 : 6)). Quant aux statuettes en bronze, sur les neuf recensées, une seule présente cet élément : celle de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3). Dans ce cas, le support prend la forme d’une fine colonnette, à la base et au chapiteau identiques. Elle est reliée à l’avant-bras droit, juste en dessous du poignet. Cet exemple montre qu’il est possible de restituer, pour les figurines en bronze, un support hérité des modèles de grande statuaire. Il serait peut-être possible d’en faire autant pour certaines autres statuettes. En tout cas, la question doit être posée pour le bronze Lormier. En effet, sur ce point, un élément attire l’attention. Il s’agit de l’espace situé sous la main d’Hermès qui tient le jeune Dionysos. De part et d’autre, cet espace est délimité par les jambes du petit dieu et par la chlamyde d’Hermès. Le pan du vêtement présente une apparence particulière, qui se distingue de celle des autres statuettes. En effet, le mouvement naturel d’une pointe de chlamyde retombant est souple et se compose de nombreux plis, comme c’est le cas pour l’exemplaire de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3), de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2) et de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3). Au contraire, le pan de la chlamyde du bronze Lormier se distingue par son aspect rigide et lisse à l’intérieur. De plus, les bords du pan forment des plis anguleux très marqués, tournés vers l’intérieur. Ces éléments, curieux, pourraient s’expliquer par le contact du vêtement avec un pilier quadrangulaire, libre du reste de la statuette et aujourd’hui disparu. Comme on l’observe sur la restitution proposée, ce pilier s’insèrerait parfaitement dans l’espace ainsi délimité et épouserait la forme du pan de la chlamyde (Pl. 5 : 4). Ainsi, Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 161 si aucun argument supplémentaire ne vient conforter cette possibilité, rien d’un point iconographique ou technique ne vient s’y opposer. Pour conclure sur l’analyse du bronze Lormier, nous retiendrons donc qu’il s’inscrit parfaitement dans le corpus des figurines en bronze d’Hermès Dionysophore, lesquelles s’inspirent des modèles de grande statuaire, en particulier les oeuvres de Praxitèle et de Céphisodote. La statuette reprend de ces références l’attitude générale ainsi que le style mais se distingue, à l’instar des autres petits bronzes, dans les détails, participant ainsi à la diversité d’un même type iconographique. La comparaison avec les parallèles connus a en outre permis de réfléchir sur certains traits caractéristiques de l’Hermès Lormier et d’envisager la restitution de certains attributs. Typologie et datation Pour terminer cette étude, il convient de s’interroger sur la typologique et la datation du bronze Lormier. Tout d’abord, l’état de conservation exceptionnel de l’objet, en particulier de sa dorure, oblige de le confronter aux bronzes modernes. En effet, décorant de nombreux objets du quotidien (mobilier, luminaire, horlogerie, etc.), ces bronzes se multiplient en France à partir du règne de Louis XIV et se retrouvent tout au long de l’époque moderne et jusqu’au XIXe s. (Verlet 2003). Dans les thèmes abordés, les références à l’Antiquité, en particulier à travers les représentations figurées, sont nombreuses. Des divinités ornent ainsi régulièrement les horloges et les pendules ou encore les pieds de candélabres. La faveur des types antiques dans l’art du bronze doré à l’époque moderne doit toujours inviter à la prudence lorsqu’il s’agit d’étudier une figurine aussi bien conservée que l’Hermès Lormier. Pourrait-il s’agir dans ce cas d’une réalisation moderne ? Du point de vue iconographique, parmi les sujets des bronzes modernes, on relève la présence d’Hermès et de Dionysos enfant qui apparaissent l’un comme l’autre avec leurs attributs classiques. Cependant, il faut signaler qu’à notre connaissance, aucune réalisation de ce type ne figure le pédophore, absence qu’il faut peut-être mettre sur le compte de la découverte tardive de la grande statuaire antique le représentant. Du point de vue technique, si l’état de conservation de la statuette apparaît excellent, l’objet n’en présente pas moins des altérations que seul un séjour prolongé en terre a pu produire. Quant à l’orifice au sommet de la tête et à son bouchage, dont nous pourrions penser que l’un ou l’autre soit d’époque moderne, la fonction du premier et la patine du second rendent peu probable cette hypothèse. 162 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Par ailleurs, non seulement aucun argument ne vient démontrer l’origine moderne du bronze Lormier, mais aucun ne vient non plus s’opposer à sa datation antique : iconographiquement et techniquement, il s’insère parfaitement dans la tradition de la plastique en bronze issue des modèles de grande statuaire grecque. Pour toutes ces raisons, la piste moderne nous semble ici devoir être écartée. Dès lors, où situer le bronze Lormier dans la typologie des petites figurines représentant Hermès Dionysophore ? Le faible nombre d’exemplaires connus rend difficile toute étude d’ensemble, comme l’ont déjà signalé St. Boucher (1976, 116-117) et I. Manfrini-Aragno (1987, 150-151) qui, par ailleurs, ne répertorient respectivement que quatre et sept statuettes. Malgré tout, I. Manfrini-Aragno propose une esquisse de typologie fondée sur deux types : le premier regroupe les exemplaires de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne (Pl. 3 : 3), du Louvre (Pl. 2 : 4) et de la collection J. Ternbach (Pl. 4 : 2) ; le second associe les bronzes d’Oescus (Pl. 2 : 2), de Baden (Pl. 3 : 2) et de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1). Les deux types sont distingués d’après la position du vêtement. Ainsi, le type I est caractérisé par le port d’une chlamyde en sautoir10 et la présence de Dionysos sur le bras gauche ; malgré tout I. ManfriniAragno note des variations au sein de ce type, en particulier en ce qui concerne la coiffe (pétase, couronne, absence) ainsi que la position du bras droit. Le type II quant à lui se définit d’après une chlamyde non pas disposée en sautoir mais jetée sur une épaule et enroulée autour du bras gauche11. De plus, Hermès ne dirige pas son regard vers Dionysos et son bras libre pend le long du corps. Là encore, I. Manfrini-Aragno souligne des différences au sein de ce type, notamment à propos du pétase ou des attributs de Dionysos. Enfin, l’auteure isole la statuette de Marché-Allouarde (Pl. 3 : 1), jugée différente de toutes les autres en raison de la nudité d’Hermès. A partir de sa typologie, I. Manfrini-Aragno tente de déterminer des modèles. Ainsi, son type I, qu’elle associe aux représentations des bas-reliefs, aurait pour origine l’Hermès de Praxitèle duquel s’éloignent au contraire les figurines du type II. En outre, elle remarque que ces dernières sont concentrées dans les Balkans et suppose l’existence d’un modèle d’Hermès Dionysophore en faveur dans cette région mais inconnu. Sur la question de la répartition géographique, il faut rappeler que St. Boucher (1976, 116-117), si elle ne se risque pas à proposer une typologie, remarque cependant que le motif Pour I. Manfrini-Aragno, la disposition en sautoir signifie que la chlamyde est agrafée sur l’épaule droite et tombe en un long pan du côté opposé. 11 C’est cette disposition que nous qualifions « en sautoir », conformément à l’emploi de cette expression par St. Boucher (1976). 10 Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 163 d’Hermès Dionysophore semble être, dans la petite statuaire en bronze, typiquement gaulois. Toutefois, comme l’explique I. Manfrini-Aragno (1987, 150), cette observation tient avant tout à un biais de la documentation dans la mesure où depuis les années 70, de nouvelles statuettes ont été découvertes et qu’elles ne proviennent pas toutes de la Gaule. En revanche, ce type iconographique a pu, dans cette région, posséder une signification particulière. J.-J. Hatt (1967), dans son étude qu’il consacre aux basreliefs de Gaule représentant Hermès Dionysophore, y voit la réminiscence de croyances celtiques associant à ce couple de divinités celui de Teutatès et d’Esus. Plus largement, certains ont suggéré un lien entre Hermès Dionysophore et le mithraïsme (Bober 1946 ; débattu par Picard 1949, 8586 ; Picard 1953, 95-96). Cependant, il nous semble que l’absence de contexte de découverte précis de ces statuettes rend impossible toute observation d’ordre géographique et fonctionnel. Il faut se demander si les figurines qui ont étoffé le corpus depuis la fin des années 1980, et en particulier le bronze Lormier, peuvent compléter l’esquisse de typologie proposée par I. Manfrini-Aragno (1987). L’analyse révèle qu’aucun élément supplémentaire ne vient la préciser12. Ainsi, les critères discriminants retenus par I. Manfrini-Aragno sont toujours valables. Tout d’abord, il s’agit de la disposition de la chlamyde qui est généralement soit disposée en sautoir, soit agrafée sur l’épaule droite. Le bronze Lormier et celui de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) s’inscrivent pour leur part dans la première catégorie tandis que la statuette de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) s’insère dans la seconde. L’autre critère de distinction est l’orientation du regard d’Hermès qui peut être soit tourné vers Dionysos, soit vers l’extérieur. Sur ce point, l’Hermès Lormier observe clairement le jeune dieu alors que les deux autres ont le regard tourné vers l’extérieur. On peut ajouter à ces critères typologiques un troisième, déjà remarqué par I. Manfrini-Aragno, qui est la position du bras droit d’Hermès : il peut pendre le long du corps ou bien être plus ou moins relevé, à hauteur de buste ou de tête. Le bronze Lormier rejoint cette seconde catégorie tandis que les exemplaires de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) et de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3) correspondent à la première. De plus, l’analyse typologique révèle que cette position du bras droit pendant le long du corps est corrélée à l’orientation du regard d’Hermès, celui regardant alors toujours vers l’extérieur. Au contraire, lorsque le dieu regarde son jeune compagnon, Les critères pris en compte ont été les suivants : la disposition de la chlamyde, la coiffe et la chevelure d’Hermès, la position de ses bras, les attributs des deux divinités, l’orientation du regard d’Hermès et enfin, la présence ou l’éventualité d’un support. 12 164 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère son bras et sa main tendent toujours à décrire un geste dont le but est d’attirer l’attention de ce dernier. Enfin, une dernière répartition semble se dessiner entre les exemplaires où Hermès tient Dionysos au creux de son bras gauche et ceux où il le tient dans la paume de sa main. Ainsi, la typologie initiale proposée par I. Manfrini-Aragno n’est pas remise en question par les figurines dont elle n’avait pas connaissance, lesquelles viennent s’inscrire pleinement dans celle-ci. Toutefois, il faut souligner que les deux groupes distingués par les critères présentés ci-dessus ne sont pas toujours identiques, à l’exception de la corrélation entre la position du bras droit et l’orientation du regard. De plus, au sein de chaque groupe, des variations importantes existent sur d’autres aspects comme la coiffe d’Hermès ou les attributs des deux divinités. Enfin, certains exemplaires restent à la marge de cette typologie : I. Manfrini-Aragno présentait déjà le cas du bronze de MarchéAllouarde (Pl. 3 : 1) auquel nous ajouterions la statuette de la Royal Athena Gallery (Pl. 2 : 3), celle de Pristina (Pl. 4 : 1) – qu’I. Manfrini-Aragno inscrivait pour sa part dans le type II – et celle de Tell Moqdam (Pl. 2 : 1) pour laquelle on peut se demander d’ailleurs si la restitution de Dionysos est pertinente. Toutefois, pour conclure sur cette question typologique, il faut insister sur le fait qu’un corpus de dix exemplaires ne permet pas de définir des types précis, a fortiori lorsqu’ils présentent tous des variations ou des combinaisons qui leur sont propres. Il est donc en l’état impossible d’affirmer qu’il existe au sein de la petite statuaire en bronze représentant Hermès Dionysophore des types clairement définis qui s’expliqueraient par la référence à différents modèles. Ainsi, le bronze Lormier s’il trouve probablement son origine dans les modèles de la grande statuaire, en particulier les œuvres de Praxitèle ou de Céphisodote, s’en éloigne par un certain nombre d’originalités qui s’inscrivent parfaitement dans la diversité des productions de petite plastique en bronze. Tout cela aboutit naturellement à s’interroger sur la datation qui peut être proposée pour le bronze Lormier. Parmi les parallèles recensés, il faut noter qu’aucun n’est daté de façon intrinsèque puisque tous ont été découverts hors contexte archéologique. Quant aux datations extrinsèques, par comparaisons stylistiques, elles ne sont généralement pas argumentées et par conséquent ne sauraient être recevables13. Le bronze Lormier ne fait pas exception dans Nous rappelons ces datations proposées : statuette de Tell Moqdam, époque hellénistique et plus précisément IIIe s. av. J.-C. (Perdrizet 1911, 30-31, n° 40 ; Siebert 1990, 321, n° 398) ; statuette d’Oescus, Ier-IIe s. ap. J.-C. (Ilieva 2015, 44-45) ; figurine de la Royal Athena Gallery, Ier-IIe s. ap. J.-C. (Eisenberg 2014, n° 32) ; exemplaire du Louvre, époque hellénistique (Picard 1954, 263-264) ou impériale (Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521, n° 252) ; figurine de Marché-Allouarde, IIIe-IIe s. av. J.-C. (Siebert 1990, 321, n° 399) ; 13 Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 165 ces problèmes de datation. En effet, bien que son contexte archéologique ne soit pas connu, les experts qui l’ont examinée en premier proposent de le situer aux Ier-IIe s. ap. J.-C.14 ; mais là encore, aucun argument ne vient étayer cette suggestion. Or, comme nous l’avons montré, le type iconographique, créé à la fin du IVe siècle, évolue à l’époque hellénistique tandis qu’il se diffuse sur différents supports. D’après ses caractéristiques stylistiques, le bronze Lormier s’inscrit parfaitement dans la tradition des statuettes prenant pour modèle les œuvres de grande statuaire comme celles de Praxitèle ou de Céphisodote et pourrait ainsi remonter au plus tôt au IIe ou Ier s. av. J.-C. Cependant, dans le domaine de la petite statuaire en bronze, les sujets et les traitements hellénistiques continuent à être produits à l’époque augustéenne, et parfois au-delà, ce qui ne permet pas d’exclure une date jusqu’au début de la période impériale, Ier s. voire IIe s. ap. J.-C. Conclusion Le bronze Lormier s’impose, par son état de conservation exceptionnel, comme l’un des plus beaux exemples de statuettes représentant Hermès Dionysophore. De tradition hellénistique, il s’inscrit parfaitement dans les nombreuses variantes issues du modèle praxitélien. Par ses caractéristiques propres, autant qu’elles ont pu être restituées, il vient compléter le corpus déjà abondant des figurines en bronze, mais plus largement de l’ensemble des représentations d’Hermès portant le jeune Dionysos. La diversité des variantes, quel que soit le support, montre la faveur et la diffusion de ce type iconographique tout au long de l’Antiquité, succès dont le bronze Lormier témoigne une nouvelle fois. statuette de Baden, pas de datation proposée ; exemplaire de Champdôtre-les-Auxonne, hellénistique ou « gallo-romain » (Picard 1954, 263-264) ; figurine de Pristina, IIe-IIIe s. ap. J.-C. (Popović 1969, 89, n° 88 ; Simon et Bauchhenß 1992, 521) ; statuette de la collection J. Ternbach, non datée. 14 Datation proposée par la notice de M. Kunicki qui a expertisé la statuette pour le catalogue de vente Pierre Bergé et Ass., Paris, 16 déc. 2015 (150, n° 220). 166 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Bibliographie Adamo-Muscettola St. 1985. Osservazioni sulla composizione dei larari con statuette in bronzo di Pompei ed Ercolano. In : J. Fitz et G. Fülöp (éds.), Bronzes romains figurés et appliqués et leurs problèmes techniques. Actes du VIIe colloque international sur les bronzes antiques, 9-32. Székesfehérvár. Bober P. P. 1946. The Mithraic Symbolism of Mercury Carrying the Infant Bacchus. HTR 39 (1), 75-84, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0017816000023099. Braemer F. 1963. L’Art dans l’Occident romain. Trésors d’argenterie, sculptures de bronze et de pierre. Paris. Dobruna-Salihu E. 2010. Bronze Artefacts in Roman Times in the Central Part of Dardania (Present-Day Kosovo). Histria Antiqua 19, 153-166. Eisenberg J. 2014. Art of the Ancient World. Greek, Etruscan, Roman, Byznatine, Egyptian, & Near Eastern Antiquities, vol. 25. New York, Londres. Espérandieu E. 1907-1938. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine. Paris. Espérandieu E. 1931. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Germanie romaine. Paris, Bruxelles. Frel J. 1994. Studia Varia. Rome. Gasparri C. 1986. s.v. Dionysos. In : Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), vol. 3 Zürich, München. Hatt J.-J. 1967. Hermès Dionysophore, image hellénisée d’un mythe gaulois. RAEst 18, 313-325. Ilieva P. 2015. Ancient Bronze from Bulgaria. Heritage of the Past. Sofia. Kellner H.-J. et Zahlhaas G. 1993. Der römische Tempelschatz von Weißenburg. Mainz. Kunze E. 2007. Griechische und römische Bronzen. Meisterwerke antiker Bronzen und Metallarbeiten aus der Sammlung Borowski 1. Wiesbaden. Lacroix L. 1949. Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques, la statuaire archaïque et classique. Liège. Lebel P. and Boucher St. 1975. Bronzes figurés antiques. Grecs, étrusques et romains. Autun, Paris. Manfrini-Aragno I. 1987. Bacchus dans les bronzes hellénistiques et romains. (Cahiers d’archéologie romande 34). Lausanne. Menzel H. 1964. Römische Bronzen. Bildkataloge des Kestner-Museum Hannover. Hannover. Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier 167 Perdrizet P. 1911. Bronzes grecs d’Egypte de la Collection Fouquet. Paris. Petculescu L. 2003. Antique Bronzes in Romania. Exhibition catalogue. Bucarest. Picard Ch. 1941. Le Mercure « Dionysophore » du Mithraeum de Kastell Stockstadt-am-Main. RA 18, 273-274. Picard Ch. 1949. Le symbolisme mithriaque (?) de l’Hermès Dionysophoros. RA 34, 85-86. Picard Ch. 1953. Hermès et Mithra. RA 41, 95-96. Picard Ch. 1954. Manuel d’archéologie grecque. La sculpture. vol. 4 : Période classique – IVe siècle (deuxième partie). Paris. Pickard-Cambridge A. W. 1946. The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens. Oxford. Popović L. 1969. Antička bronza u Jugoslaviji. Belgrade. Reinach S. 1894. Description raisonnée du Musée de Saint-Germain-enLaye. Antiquités nationales, vol. 2 : Bronzes figurés de la Gaule romaine. Paris. Reinach S. 1908. Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, vol. 2, part 1. Paris. Reinach S. 1924. Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, vol. 5, part 1. Paris. Reinach S. 1930. Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, vol. 6 : Mille trois cent cinquante statues antiques. Paris. Rolley C. 1999. La sculpture grecque, vol. 2 : La période classique. Paris. Siebert G. 1990. s.v. Hermès. In : Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), 5. Zürich, München. Simon E. et Bauchhenß G. 1992. s.v. Mercurius. In : Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), 6. Zürich, München. Thomas E. B. 1988. Vergoldete Kentaurstatue aus Dazien. In : K. Gschwantler et A. Bernhard-Walcher (éds.), Griechische und römische Statuetten und Großbronzen. Akten der 9. Internationalen Tagung über antike Bronzen, Wien, 21–25 April 1986, 353-356. Wien. Alexis Bonnefoy Chercheur associé à l’UMR 5138 du CNRS, Lyon [email protected] Michel Feugère UMR 5138 du CNRS, Lyon [email protected] PLANCHE 1 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Pl. 1 : 1 – Le bronze Lormier, vue de face et profil droit, photo Galerie La Reine Margot, Paris Pl. 1 : 2 – Le bronze Lormier, vue de profil gauche et vue de dos, photo Galerie La Reine Margot, Paris Pl. 1 : 3 – Le bronze Lormier, détail du visage, du sommet du crâne et du geste de la main droite d’Hermès, photo Galerie La Reine Margot, Paris Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier PLANCHE 2 Pl. 2 : 1 – Hermès de Tell Moqdam, bronze, d’ap. Perdrizet 1911, pl. 17 Pl. 2 : 2 – Hermès de Sofia, bronze, d’ap. Ilieva 2015, fig. 65 Pl. 2 : 3 – Hermès Royal-Athena Galleries, bronze photo Royal-Athena Galleries Pl. 2 : 4 – Hermès du Louvre, bronze, photo Christian Larrieu ©musée du Louvre PLANCHE 3 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Pl. 3 : 1 – Hermès de Péronne, bronze photo Collection Musée Alfred-Danicourt - Péronne (Somme) Pl. 3 : 2 – Hermès de Baden, bronze, photo E. Deschler-Erb Pl. 3 : 3 – Hermès de Champdôtre-lès-Auxonne, bronze, photo Musée Rolin, Autun Hermès Dionysophore : Le Bronze Lormier PLANCHE 4 Pl. 4 : 1 – Hermès de Pristina, bronze, d’ap. Popović 1969, n° 88 Pl. 4 : 2 – Hermès de la coll. J. Ternbach, William Ackland Memorial Center, d’ap. ManfriniAragno 1987, fig. 323 Pl. 4 : 3 – Relief de Flemlingen, d’ap. Espérandieu 1907-1938, VIII, 5969 PLANCHE 5 A. Bonnefoy, M. Feugère Pl. 5 : 1 – Hermès de Praxitèle (Olympie), ph. Roccuz (Creative Commons) Pl. 5 : 2 – Bronze de Caracalla frappé à Pautalia, Thrace, d’ap. Lacroix 1949, pl. 27, 6 Pl. 5 : 3 – Patère de Turin, d’ap. Picard 1954, 263, fig. 111 Pl. 5 : 4 – Bronze Lormier, restitution 3D avec complément (A. Bonnefoy) Pl. 5 : 5 – Hermès de Minturnes, d’ap. Siebert 1990, Hermès n° 395 Pl. 5 : 6 – Hermès Boboli, d’ap. Siebert 1990, Hermès n° 396 S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Graça Cravinho Lisbon ROMAN ENGRAVED GEMS IN THE NATIONAL ARCHAELOGICAL MUSEUM IN LISBON Abstract: The article presents the collection of Roman engraved gems in the National Museum of Archaeology, in Lisbon. Although a small cabinet, it contains a wide variety of themes and motifs. Among the intaglios, the nicolos deserve to be especially highlighted for their quantity when compared with the others, thus strenghtening the evidence for the existence of a regional quartz industry in the city of Ammaia, which particularly specialized in the manufacture of nicolo gemstones. The themes match those existing throughout the Empire, but some items deserve special attention: Eros removing a thorn from a lion’s paw (no. 3); three Satyrs performing a sacrifice (no. 1); the wounded warrior (no. 31); the ‘prodigy scene’ (no. 36); Faustulus, the Capitoline Wolf and the twins (no. 37); a possible portrait of Cleopatra (no. 42); the Jewish symbols (no. 70) and the magical amulet (no. 72). Keywords: Ammaia; Cleopatra; intaglio; cameo; nicolo; etched carnelian; ‘prodigy scene’; foundation of Rome The National Museum of Archaeology (Museu Nacional de Arqueologia) was created in Lisbon in 1893 by the archaeologist José Leite de Vasconcelos, under the name of Museu Etnográfico Português, although it officially opened only in 1906. It gathers the founder’s first collections, those of the archaeologist Estácio da Veiga and many others coming from the Portuguese Royal House, the former Beaux Arts Museum, the Antiques Cabinet of the National Library, the excavations held by the museum or by other archaeologists (although several monographic museums have been DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.09 174 G. Cravinho created, such as those in Conimbriga, Braga and Ammaia), and donations or legacies of collectors and devoted friends of the museum. Among its glyptic pieces, there is a small collection of scarabs (16 items), Modern gems (6 items) and Roman gems (74 items). Perhaps we should go back into Portuguese History and consider certain historical facts that might explain this small number of gems (such as the great earthquake and tsunami in Lisbon, in 1755, and the French Invasions). Actually, some authors refer to gems existing in Portugal whose actual location we do not know at all (Babelon 1897, 74; Reinach 1895, pl. 115, II, 33; Tassie 1791, vol. I: nos. 4394 and 5962; vol. II: nos. 8554, 9946, 10180, 10189, 10353, 10981, 11064, 11424, 11764, 12088, 12100, 13980 and 14349). Many of the Roman gems were donated and the places where they were found are unknown (as is the case of those that once belonged to the donator Bustorff Silva – nos. 1, 15-16, 19, 29-32, 34, 36-37, 39-42, 56, 63 and 67. Others have no precise findspot (for example those said to have come from Alentejo – 9, 12, 22, 25, 48, 59 and 71) or they have a false origin indicated (as we could see in old numbers of the revue O Arqueólogo Português). Actually, the inventory of the first archaeological collections was not made as the finds entered the museum, but only from 1906 onwards (that is, thirteen years after the museum’s creation) due to lack of staff (Vasconcelos 1913a, 178). It is interesting to note that almost all the gems came from South Portugal, including a red jasper uncovered in Alentejo with a shrimp engraved on it and now lost (Graça and Machado 1970, 384-385, no. 17; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 169). The exceptions are nos. 6 and 10 (this one was bought in Lisbon but said to have come from Porto), from North Portugal and others uncovered in Central Portugal: no. 18 (from the mountains of Serra da Estrela), no. 26 (from Batalha, not far from the coastline), and no. 57 (from Idanha-a-Velha, the Roman Igaeditania, perhaps founded before Augustus and an episcopal city at an early stage). This Glyptic collection is composed of 73 intaglios and 1 cameo (arranged in the catalogue according to the editor’s suggestion, although other options exist, like that of Henig and MacGregor’s 2004 book). Their materials are similar to those existing in other museums throughout the ancient Roman Empire: 17 nicolos (nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 14, 18-19, 22, 27, 35, 38, 44-45, 48, 58, 66 and 70); 21 carnelians (nos. 2, 5, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 30, 32, 34, 36, 41, 43, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 63, 71 and 73); 2 plasmas (nos. 9-10); 2 sards (nos. 24 and 64); 10 jaspers (nos. 4, 25-26, 29, 33, 37, 52, 55, 57 and 72); 1 onyx/sardonyx (no. 7); 1 chrysoprase (no. 17); 1 amethyst (no. 31); 4 agates (nos. 50, 54, 62 and 65); 3 chalcedonies (nos. 39, 59 and 74); 8 glass Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 175 pastes (nos. 12, 16, 21, 40, 42, 60-61 and 67) and 4 nicolo-pastes (nos. 28, 46 and 68-69). The most frequent materials are carnelian and nicolo. Note the great number of nicolos (23%), in comparison to those from other sites and regions: Aquileia (128, from a total of 1573 gems, that is, 8.1% – cf. Sena Chiesa 1966), Luni (9, from a total of 175 gems, that is, 5.1% – cf. Sena Chiesa 1978), Gadara (10, from a total of 427 gems, that is, 2.3% – cf. Henig and Whiting 1987), France (209, from a total of 1472 gems, that is, 14.1% – cf. Guiraud 1988; Guiraud 2008), Great Britain (59, from a total of 860 gems, that is, 6.8% – cf. Henig 1974), Cologne (42, from a total of 470 gems, that is 8.9%), Bonn (11, from a total of 128 gems, that is 8.5% cf. Platz-Horster 1984), Bulgaria (19, from a total of 326 gems, that is, 5.8% – cf. DimitrovaMilčeva 1980; Ruseva-Slokoska 1991). This only can be explained by the availability in Ammaia (Alentejo) of quartz as a raw material (already referred to by Pliny, NH 37.127) and perhaps the existence of (a) local manufacturing centre(s) specializing in treating, cutting and engraving quarried quartz during imperial times (Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2006, 533-543), as was demonstrated by the finding of some ancient quartz quarries, and by many quartz fragments uncovered during ongoing excavations (Taelman et al. 2008, 32; Taelman et al. 2009, 182-183 and 186; Pereira 2009, 73-74, 98, 122, 124 and 126; Taelman et al. 2010, 65-67; Osório 2014). Actually, nicolo is a treated microcrystaline quartz obtained by the use of techniques that go back to Hellenistic times, consisting in soaking the stones in honey (or other sugary substances) and heating them, in order to paint, improve and enhance their pale natural colors or change them into others. The technique is already referred to by Pliny, who states that the stones become brighter if boiled in honey, especially honey from Corsica (NH 37.195). As to the iconography of the gems, the devices allude to religious beliefs and sacro-idyllic scenes (nos. 1-30), heroes (nos. 31-37), portraits and scenes of the daily life (nos. 38-44 and 73), masks and mythical beasts (nos. 6063), and animals (nos. 45-59). There are also symbols, objects and symbolic compositions (nos. 64-70). The other intaglios either have an inscription (no. 71), magical motifs and an inscription (no. 72) or have been destroyed (no. 74). Statues, inscriptions and gems show that the most popular Roman deities in the region which comprises present-day Portugal were Mars (nos. 2 and 9-14) and Jupiter (nos. 2 and 8). A bronze statue representing Mars Gradivus, in the Évora Museum, and some intaglios with his depiction perhaps testify to existence of a cult to the god of veterans and peasants in both Portuguese 176 G. Cravinho Lusitania and Gallaecia (Alarcão 1987, 171-172). The cult of Jupiter can be explained by the assimilation of indigenous deities due to the influence of the Roman army and is demonstrated by many inscriptions with no epithet or bearing the epithets Conservator, Depulsor, Maximus, Optimus Maximus, Repulsor, Solutorius, Supremus Summus, Tonans, Optimus Maximus Conservator, Optimus Maximus Municipalis and Iuppiter Caielobrigus (this last one written in the Lusitanian language). Victoria (nos. 26-28), Eros (nos. 3-7) and satyrs (nos. 1 and 15-20) were also popular. Indeed, satyrs are the most common motif in the Portuguese gem corpus. Athena-Minerva (nos. 21-22) appears in several bronze statues and is mentioned in many inscriptions found throughout the country. In one altar from Conimbriga (Hispania Epigraphica online Database, no. 22949) she has the epitet of Minerva Sancra (instead of Minerva Sancta) and in another from Serpa (Hispania Epigraphina online Database, no. 5219) the epithet of Dea Medica. Athena Nikephoros (no. 2), identified by Plutarch with Nit, the Egyptian Goddess of War (called by him Athena of Sais) and with a specific cult and temple in the Acropolis of Athens, also appears on another four gems from Portuguese Lusitania. That is not the case of Minerva Pacifera, who only appears on our gem no. 22. Fortuna (no. 24) is a very common subject for statues, mosaics, lamps, and inscriptions. In one inscription, from one of Conimbriga’s Bath suites (the so-called ‘Grandes Termas do Sul’), she appears as Fortuna Balnearis and in another, from Torre d’Aires (Algarve), as Fortuna Augusti. Nemesis (no. 25) is apparently mentioned in only a single inscription (Hispania Epigraphica online Database, no. 21994) from Évora (Alentejo), where an association of worshipers (amici Nemesiaci) existed to provide burials for their members. Thus, it is not surprising that our gem was found in a grave at Alentejo. The scene with the wounded warrior (no. 31) is typical of many gems of the 1st century BC and 1st century AD, engraved in Archaic style with scenes from the Trojan War (cf. Casal Garcia 1991, no. 52). The possible portrait of Cleopatra (no. 42) was identified with the help of some marble busts displayed in museums and a bronze coin of Alexandria dating to 50-31 BC (McManus 2006, no. 1). The carnelian of no. 43 exhibits a special technique in manufacture which was kindly explained to us by Dr. Jack Ogden in 2014, as follows: ‘The technique used to get the white in the engraved depression relates to that used from very ancient times (‘etched carnelian’ beads from ancient Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 177 Mesopotamia) to more recent Tibetan Dzi beads. The carnelian was shaped and engraved. Next it was covered in an alkali solution (probably sodium carbonate) and heated. This bleached the surface. The upper surface of the gem was then re-polished to leave the white in the depressions’ (cf. Ogden 2007, 16). This is not, however, the only case where this technique has been employed in our gem corpus: another carnelian, depicting a reaper, found in recent excavations in Mogadouro (North Portugal) and dating to the 3rd century, was similarly treated. The amulet (no. 72) is a remarkable piece, as are the intaglios depicting a lyre (no. 66) and Jewish symbols (no. 70). This last item is highly important as it testifies to Eastern influence and to the existence of individual Jews or perhaps even of a Jewish community in the city of Ammaia. Although the origin of their presence in Portuguese Lusitania is obscure, other archaeological objects, inscriptions and architectonic structures attest to Jews in Portugal from Roman times. The earliest concrete evidence for the presence of Jewish immigrants, presumably from Judaea, in the Iberian Peninsula is a small hoard of Roman coins dating from the 1st century AD discovered near Mértola (the Roman Myrtilis) during the destruction of an old wall, now displayed in the Museu Judaico de Belmonte, which includes coins issued in Jerusalem and Roman Palestine between the years 6-60 AD by King Agrippa (of King Herod’s family) as well as by procurators serving in Palestine (Centeno and Valladares Souto 1993/1997, 200). It is significant that, of the several tomb inscriptions which testify to Jews buried in presentday Portugal, some were excavated in Mértola. One is a fragmented marble grave-slab inscribed in Latin bearing the date 4th of October 482 AD. Although it is missing the name of the deceased, his Jewish origin is made obvious by a partially preserved Hebrew word and a schematic menorah with plain branches and tripod base engraved below the inscription. Other objects relating to Jews, primarily ceramic oil lamps, were found in the ruins of Tróia city’s harbour, Lusitania, whose ancient Roman name is unknown (its actual name goes back to the 16th century and was first used by the Portuguese humanists Gaspar Barreiros and André de Resende). At least two of the oil lamps are decorated with the menorah (Cravinho and AmoraiStark 2006, 533). However, ascribing Jewish ownership and meaning is problematic because the menorah was also used by Paleo-Christians. 178 G. Cravinho CATALOGUE I – DEITIES Groups of gods 1. Black and greyish nicolo, sub-rectangular, flat upper face and slightly convex lower face, with outward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F2?). Dimensions: 11.8 x 15.3 x 3mm. Chipped on the lower edge. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 619. Description: Sacro-idyllic scene. Three Satyrs conducting the sacrifice of a goat: in the middle of the scene, one bearded satyr is seated on a rock and playing a lyre; a young satyr stands on the right and plays the double flute (tibiae); another bearded satyr on the left is under a tree holding the goat by its horns. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Extinguishing Pellet Style. Parallels: Marshall 1907, no. 1365 (= Walters 1926, no. 1618 – nicolo; 10 x 14mm); Walters 1926, no. 1585 (sard, 10 x 13mm; the same shape). Discussion: The scene is related to the Dionysiac sacrifices performed in a sacred idyllic space. In some variants the animal (usually a goat) is being sacrificed (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 830; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, nos. 343 and 352; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 82; Henig 1994, no. 207) or is being led to an altar for the sacrifice – a common motif on Roman paintings of Pompeii, on which a lamb is being led to a sanctuary. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 183; Ponte 1995, 133, no. 249. Date: Second half of the 1st century BC. 2. Red carnelian, oval, set in a fragment of a Roman gold ring, now lost. From a grave in Benafim (Loulé, Algarve). Unknown location (only its impression lasts). Description: Jupiter Capitolinus enthroned, in slightly three-quarter front view and facing left, with an eagle at his feet. Nude, apart from a himation around his legs, he holds a scepter in his left hand and a thunderbolt in the right. Facing him stands Mars Ultor, frontal, wearing a cuirass and a helmet and holding a spear and a shield. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Parallels: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 663 (also Victoria); Sternberg 1980, no. 731 (Jupiter and Mars standing, eagle between them); Gesztelyi 2000, no. 75 (also Victoria). Discussion: According to Leite de Vasconcelos, the intaglio was set in a fragment of a Roman gold ring, already lost when he came across Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 179 its impression (Vasconcelos 1907, 367). Its motif is one of the several depictions with Jupiter and other deities, with a special emphasis on those that comprised the Capitoline Triad (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXV, no. 38 and pl. XLIV, no. 48; Richter 1971, no. 52). As to its date, we only have the testimony of the archaeologist José Leite de Vasconcelos, who stated that the grave was dated to the 5th century AD at the earliest, because the ring was found in association with a gold triens of Licinia Eudoxia (wife of Theodosius II, who lived from 421 to 450 AD). Publ.: Vasconcelos 1907, 367; Vasconcelos 1908b, 355-356; Vasconcelos 1913b, 268, fig. 122; Cardozo 1962, no. 21; Almeida and Veiga Ferreira 1965, 97; Cravinho 2010, 16 (simply cited). Date: 1st-2nd-century AD. Gods Eros 3. Black and very pale-blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4)1. Dimensions: 13 x 10.5 x 3.2mm. Chipped on the right edge. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1200. Description: Eros kneeling to the left, removing a thorn from the right paw of a lion with its mouth open as if roaring in pain. Behind the lion, a tree that bends to the right, curving with the shape of the intaglio. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Flat Bouterolle Style. Parallels: Tassie 1791, pl. XLIII, no. 6710; Furtwängler 1896, pl. 25, no. 3033 (= Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLVI, no. 18; Lippold 1922, pl. XXIX, no. 11); Fossing 1929, no. 1727 (no tree; below a Capricorn and a star); Breglia 1941, no. 565 (no tree); Richter 1956, no. 308 (no tree); AGDS IV, pl. 41, no. 260 (no tree); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 368 (tree and a vase on a column). Discussion: This motif, also common on magical gems (Bonner 1950, nos. 242-243; Delatte-Derchain 1964, no. 320a), is related to the legend of Androkles (cf. Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 10.12), transmitted by Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae, vol. V.5-14) and later transposed to the evangelist Mark, commonly represented with a lion. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 23, no. 6; Cravinho 2015, 94-95, no. 1. Date: End of the 1st century BC-beginning of the 1st century AD. This description of nicolos of the F4 type is according to Henig and MacGregor 2004. Sometimes the nicolo is of F2 type (cf. our no. 1) or has the upper face convex (cf. Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 553). 1 180 G. Cravinho 4. Red jasper, oval, flat upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 3a), with a bezel with ten concave faces. Gem’s dimensions: 9.5 x 8.5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 23.5mm; inner diameter: 18mm; H: 19mm. Wt: 4.3g. In good condition. From a grave in Luz de Tavira (Algarve)? Inv. no. Au 8. Description: Eros standing in slightly three-quarter front view to the left, holding a thyrsus obliquely downward over his right shoulder and a theatrical mask in his right hand. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Wheel Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXVII, no. 64 (= Lippold 1922, pl. XXV, no. 4); Gonzenbach 1952, nos. 21 (holding a mask and an inverted pedum) and 22 (holding an inverted thyrsus and playing the double flute); Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 336; Henig 1974, no. 116 (holding a mask and an inverted pedum); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 377 (holding a thyrsus; a mask on his right); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2783; Spier 1992, no. 360; Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 54 (Hellenistic, 3rd-2nd century BC; without the tyrsus). Discussion: Being a follower of Dionysos-Bacchus, Eros appears in a variety of poses related to his cult on gems, reliefs, sculptures and other objects. Sometimes he leans on a pedum and holds a mask (Middleton 1991, no. 7) or only holds a mask (Vollenweider 1984, no. 99) or a thyrsus (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 298) or, with one leg crossed over the other, he leans on a thyrsus copying the model of the statue of Pothos by Skopas and has at his feet a goose (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLIII, no. 52 = Lippold 1922, pl. XXVII, no. 8).. This gem was reused in the 3rd century AD when mounted in this ring, which has an exact parallel in a ring from Carmona, Sevilha (cf. Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 156). Publ.: Vasconcelos 1898, 288, figs. 3-3a; Cardozo 1962, no. 25 (said to come from Alentejo); Graça and Machado 1970, 379-380, no. 6 (said to come from Alentejo); Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 200; Cravinho 2010, 17 (simply cited). Date: 1st century BC. 5. Orange carnelian, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type A4). Dimensions: 11.1 x 13.2 x 5mm. Chipped on the right edge. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1209. Description: Eros riding a lion to the left, with his right arm raised and holding the reins in the left. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 181 Parallels: Furtwängler 1896, pl. 25, no. 3031 and pl. 56, no. 7528; Walters 1926, no. 2853 (glass paste imitating sard); AGDS III Kassel, pl. 32, no. 44 (2nd-1st century BC); AGDS IV, pl. 196, no. 1457. Discussion: The type is related to the Dionysiac thiasos and was very popular among Roman decorative arts and gems (Michel 2001, nos. 257-258 – magical gems). Sometimes, Eros holds a whip (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1160) or a wreath (Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 179) or plays a lyre (Walters 1926, no. 3871; AGDS IV, pl. 106, no. 823) or a flute (Middleton 1991, no. 79), or the lion is running (Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 228). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 23-24, no. 7; Cravinho 2015, 96-97, no. 2. Date: 2nd century AD. 6. Black and greyish nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman silver ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2d). Gem’s dimensions: 7 x 10mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 18mm; inner diameter: 14mm. In good condition. From the castrum of Monte Mozinho. Inv. no. Au 1219. Description: Eros holding in his right hand a bunch of grapes and running away from a cock to the left. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Plain Grooves Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 872 (= Walters 1926, nos. 1516, pl. XX, no. 1524); Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XXI, no. 47; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 42 (Eros and goose); Gonzenbach 1952, no. 24; Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 429-430 (Pan); AGDS III Kassel, pl. 31, no. 41; Henig 1974, nos. 141-142 (Eros); AGDS IV, pl. 105, no. 815E (Eros); Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 73; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 454 (50 BC-50 AD); Sternberg 1980, no. 791 (cameo, fleeing from a swan); Zazoff 1983, pl. 103, no. 4; ZwierleinDiehl 1986, no. 18 (Eros and goose); Spier 1992, no. 249 (Eros holding a palm on the other hand). Discussion: This ring comes from a romanized Iron Age castrum of North Portugal. The type of its intaglio goes back to the 6th (Beazley 1920, no. 13) and 5th-4th centuries BC (Neverov 1976, no. 32). A similar motif shows a fight between a pygmy and a crane (Walters 1926, nos. 1037-1038; Richter 1971, nos. 22-23; AGDS IV, pl. 34, no. 183; Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 76). Publ.: Rigaud de Sousa 1973, 190 no. 4, fig. 4; Ferreira de Almeida 1974, 25, pl. XXX, fig. 1; Casal Garcia 1980, 102-103 and footnote 19; Soeiro 1984, 263, fig. CXXXIV, 2; Cravinho 2010, 18 (simply cited). Date: 2nd century AD. 182 G. Cravinho 7. White and black onyx/sardonyx, oval, flat on both faces, with high outward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F3), set in a small Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2d). Gem’s dimensions: 9 x 7mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 11mm; inner diameter: 6mm; H: 11mm. Wt: 2.6g. In good condition. Acquired in Estremoz. Inv. no. Au 432. Description: Eros to the right, in slightly three-quarter front view, holding a quiver in his left hand and an arrow in the right. No ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Gramatopol 1974, no. 181 (with bow and arrow, altar in front); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1148 (with bow and arrow); Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 196 (frontal, holding bow and pulling an arrow out of the quiver). Discussion: Eros as a hunter is a merely decorative motif also used on mosaics, lamps and coins. On gems he is sometimes depicted chasing a rabbit (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 334) or a hare (Richter 1956, no. 310; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 702) or with other Erotes, as if to illustrate the several phases of the hunt (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 57). Publ.: Cardozo 1962, no. 17; Graça and Machado 1970, 380, no. 7; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 204; Cravinho 2010, 17 (simply cited). Date: 2nd century AD. Jupiter 8. Black and blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 19.3 x 15 x 4.2mm. Chipped on the lower face. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1197. Description: Bearded, nude Jupiter standing to the front and facing right, holding in his outstretched left hand a thunderbolt (fulmen), and his scepter in the right. At his feet, an eagle with its head turned back, stands looking up towards him. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Rigid Chinmouth-nose Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLIV, no. 49; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 20; Hamburger 1968, no. 11; Maioli 1971, no. 4; Henig 1974, no. 14 (carnelian, 2nd century AD); Elliot and Henig 1982, no. 17; Middleton 1991, no. 30; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 150 (glass paste, 1st century AD); Chaves and Casal 1995, no. 24 (jasper, 2nd century AD); Gesztelyi 2000, no. 71; Sena Chiesa et al. 2009, no. 28; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 39. Discussion: The type derived from a motif of 4th-century BC Greek art, which possibly depicted the Zeus of Argos by Lysippus, and appears on Greek coins of the 2nd century BC and on Roman coins until the 3rd century AD with the epithets of Tonans or Conservator. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 183 Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 22, no. 3; Cravinho 2015, 108-109, no. 8. Date: 3rd century AD. Mars 9. Dark-green plasma, oval, slightly convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2b). Gem’s dimensions: 10 x 7mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 21.4mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 18mm. Wt: 5.5g. In good condition. From Baixo Alentejo. Inv. no. Au 181. Description: Mars standing, three-quarter front view to right, helmeted and wearing high boots and greaves, a cuirass, a short tunic and a mantle that hangs from his back and is being brushed away by his right arm. In his outstretched left hand he holds a Victoriola and in the right hand a spear obliquely upward and passing behind his body. At his feet is a shield. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Gesztelyi 1987, no. 63; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2769 (plasma, 1st-2nd century AD); Henig 1994, no. 876 (Roma or Virtus? 2nd century AD); Guiraud 2008, no. 1125; Angeles Gutierez 2008, no. 4. Discussion: This iconographic scheme seems to have derived from a Hellenistic sculptural model. In some variants Mars stands by a column (Marshall 1907, no. 1334) or he holds the shield over his shoulder (Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 218-219), as on the coins of Trajan celebrating the victory against the Dacians, or there is no shield (Henig 1974, nos. 90-91; Guiraud 2008, no. 1126), or, instead of Victoria, he holds a patera in his outstretched hand (Guiraud 1988, no. 133; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 2767) and makes a libation on the altar at his feet (Gramatopol 1974, no. 192). Publ.: Vasconcelos 1898, 288, figs. 2-2a; Vasconcelos 1906, 285; Vasconcelos 1908a, 356; Carvalhaes 1911, 118 and 295; Cardozo 1962, no. 23 (said to have depicted Minerva and to have been found in Luz de Tavira, Algarve); Graça and Machado 1970, 376-377, no. 2 (said to have depicted Minerva and to have been found in Luz de Tavira, Algarve); Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 196. Date: 1st century AD. 10. Dark-green plasma, oval, slightly convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 10.2 x 9.2mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 25mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 21.1mm. Wt: 5.9g. In good condition. From Porto. Inv. no. Au 137. Description: Mars (or Achilles) standing, with the body slightly bent and facing left, wearing a plumed helmet and a chlamys (sagum) falling down 184 G. Cravinho his back. He has his right foot up on a rock and fastens a greave on the right leg with his left hand and holds in the right a spear and a shield, placed on a cuirass in front of him. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Reinach 1895, pl. 61, no. 57.2 (Achilles or Cincinnatus?); Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 921; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 6, no. 40; Middleton 1991, no. 163 (= Henig and MacGregor 2004, 102, no. 10.6 – Achilles?). Discussion: Sometimes the warrior fastens the greave with both hands (Henig 1994, no. 337), or the shield and the spear are in front of him (Gauthier 1977, 460, fig. 14), or he is sitting on a chair and has in front of him a helmet on a shield (Krug 1995, no. 55). It is interesting to note that this scheme also appears in the iconography of Eros (AGDS III Kassel, pl. 39, nos. 119-122), who is sometimes depicted with Mars’s weapons. Publ.: Chaves 1914, 368; Chaves 1920, 245; Cardozo 1962, no. 22; Graça and Machado 1970, 383-384, no. 12; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 195. Date: 1st century AD. 11. Red carnelian, polished, oval, convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 3f). Gem’s dimensions: 12 x 9mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 20.5mm; inner diameter: 16mm; H: 23.5mm. Wt: 5.5g. In good condition. From the ruins of Tróia (opposite the city of Setúbal). Inv. no. Au 1. Description: Mars Gradivus striding towards the left, wearing a helmet with λοφος and nude, apart from a subligaculum around his waist floating out on either side of his body. His left hand holds a spear obliquely upward, passing in front of his body, and the right holds a trophy (spolia opima) over the right shoulder. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Reinach 1895, pl. 62, nos. 58.3 and 59.4, pl. 125, no. 39bis; Furtwängler 1896, pl. 54, no. 7259; Lippold 1922, pl. VII, no. 1 and pl. XXXIX, no. 2; Walters 1926, no. 1356; Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 222 and 224; Henig 1975, no. 33 (convex carnelian, 1st or 2nd century AD); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 625 (1st century AD); Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1283; Spier 1992, nos. 357-358; Alfaro Giner 1996, no. 27. Discussion: The type of Mars Gradivus (the marching or dancing god, according to Ovid – cf. Henig 1982, 216) or Tropaeophoros or Iuvenis (the Italic agrarian god), was probably copied from a cult statue (cf. Richter, 1956, no. 295) and symbolized the Roman victories (which explains his Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 185 other names of Victor and Invictus). Having appeared for the first time on republican coins, such as those of L. Valerio Flacco (c. 100 BC), the type was more widespread in the imperial period, especially under Galba, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, although the name of Mars Gradivus never appears (only Mars Ultor, Augustus, Invictus, Pater and Victor). His subligaculum is said to be a mantel (Richter 1971, 37) or a reminiscence of the costume of the Samnite warriors (Guiraud 1995, no. 118). Very occasionally Venus Victrix is shown by his side (AGDS III Kassel, pl. 6, no. 39). Publ.: Cardozo 1962, no. 28; Graça and Machado 1970, 378, no. 4; Henig 1974, 16 (parallel of his no. 70); Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 191; Cravinho 2010, 16 (simply cited). Date: 1st century AD. 12. Glass paste imitating red jasper, oval, slightly convex upper face, flat lower face and inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type A4). Dimensions: 14 x 10.5 x 2.4mm. Broken and with small ‘holes’ in the upper face. From Alentejo. Inv. no. Au 599. Description: Mars Gradivus walking to the left, helmeted and nude apart from a subligaculum around his waist floating out on the left side of his body. His left hand holds a spear obliquely upward, passing behind the body, and the right holds a trophy (spolia opima) over the right shoulder. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Round Head Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 225 and 228; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 6, nos. 36 and 38; Gramatopol 1974, no. 190; AGDS IV, pl. 101, no. 784; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 804; Krug 1978, no. 51; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1284; Krug 1980, nos. 250-251; Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 79; Guiraud 1988, no. 125; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2772. Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 377-378, no. 3; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 164; Cravinho 2010, 16 (simply cited). Date: 1st-2nd century AD. 13. Pale-orange carnelian, with some lighter shades, oval, flat upper face, slightly convex lower face and inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F6). Dimensions: 12.6 x 9 x 2.3mm. Chipped on the right lower edge. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1207. Description: Mars Gradivus walking to the left on tiptoe, wearing a helmet with λοφος and nude apart from a subligaculum around his waist floating out on the left side of his body. He holds in the left hand a spear obliquely 186 G. Cravinho upward, passing behind his body, and in the right hand a trophy over the right shoulder. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Groves Style. Parallels: AGDS III Kassel, pl. 5, no. 35 (1st-2nd century AD); MaaskantKleibrink 1978, no. 804 (carnelian, 1st-2nd century AD); Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 131; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2771 (2nd century AD); Guiraud 1995, no. 23; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 10. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 22, no. 4; Cravinho 2015, 98-99, no. 3. Date: 1st-2nd century AD. 14. Black and blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 11.8 x 9.1 x 2.4mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1201. Description: Mars Ultor standing in slightly three-quarter front view and facing right, helmeted and wearing a cuirass (lorica) and a short tunic (tunica manicata). In his left hand he holds a spear and in the right a large round shield over the right shoulder. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Plain Grooves Style. Parallels: Breglia 1941, no. 544; Maioli 1971, no. 27, pl. II, no. 9; Gramatopol 1974, no. 194; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1095 (1st century BC); Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 222; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 91. Discussion: The motif derived from a prototype of early Hellenism and constitutes one of the variants of the Mars Ultor type. In some of those variants, he carries a sword and drapery at his waist (Zienkiewicz 1986, no. 46) or has another shield in front of him (Henig 1974, no. 465) or is accompanied by Victoria (Zwierlein-Diehl, 1979, no. 1204 – crowning him), by Venus (Smith, 1888, no. 791) or by Venus and Cupid (Walters, 1926, no. 1435). Publ.: Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2006, 524, footnote 15 (simply cited); Cravinho 2010, 19, Pl. I-1; Cravinho 2015, 100-101, no. 4. Date: 2nd century AD. Satyrs 15. Orange carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 10.5 x 9 x 3mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 614. Description: Satyr, in slightly three-quarter back view and facing left. With his right foot up resting on a stone, he plays with his left hand a lyre placed on his right knee and holds a thyrsus obliquely upward over the right Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 187 shoulder. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Flat Bouterolle Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 2245 (= Marshall 1907, no. 1189; Walters 1926, no. 2179 – bearded man playing cithara); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2787 (Eros in front); Guiraud 2008, no. 1196 (carnelian, 15 x 9mm; late 1st century BC-1st century AD). Discussion: On some variants of the motif the satyr is seated (MaaskantKleibrink 1978, no. 342; Spier 1992, no. 281; Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 42) or kneeling (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 963; Krug 1980, no. 322), or there is also a figure of Silenus playing the auloi (Henig 1994, no. 177) in the scene. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 178; Ponte 1995, 129, no. 234; Cravinho 2010, 18 (simply cited). Date: Second half of the 1st century BC. 16. Black glass paste, oval, flat upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Marshall’s Ring Type XVI). Gem’s dimensions: 12 x 16.5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 20mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 26mm. Wt: 3.8g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 639. Description: Sacro-idyllic scene: satyr/Silenos seated on a rock in profile to the left, playing a lyre. In front of him, a shrine on a rocky eminence which contains a statue, perhaps of Priapus. Ground line. Parallels: Middleton 1891, XVIII, no. 69 (= Henig 1994, no. 182 – second half of the 1st century BC); Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 60; Walters 1926, 172, no. 1584 (= Richter 1971, no. 188); Berry 1969, no. 35 (nicolo; temple interpreted as an amphora); AGDS III Kassel, pl. 13, no. 101 (holding a thyrsus); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 394 (holding a thyrsus); Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 249; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2540/7; Ubaldelli 2001, no. 323; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 3.86 (1st century BC). Discussion: This scene must have derived from a Hellenistic original, like all those in which the satyrs make libations or play a musical instrument in the open air, in front of an altar, or a small priapic temple, or a temple of Athena, or a column with a herma on it. Sometimes in front of the satyr there is also a tree (AGDS III Kassel, pl. 13, no. 102), or two goats (Spier 1992, no. 281), or an Erote (Gramatopol 1974, no. 53), or Dionysos-child (Sternberg 1980, no. 746), or the temple is missing (Breglia 1941, no. 535; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 39). On another scheme, the satyr is standing and plays the double flute (Richter 1956, no. 326; AGDS IV, pl. 60, no. 413; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 36; Guiraud 1988, no. 294; Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 150) or dances and plays a lyre (Walters 1926, no. 1584). 188 G. Cravinho Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 206; Ponte 1995, 129, no. 232. Date: Second half of the 1st century BC. 17. Pale-green chrysoprase, circular, convex and polished upper face, set in a small Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2b). Gem’s dimensions: 5.5 x 5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 17mm; inner diameter: 12mm; H: 15.5mm. Wt: 3.2g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 669. Description: Young satyr in slightly three-quarter front view and facing left, sitting on the floor and holding a syrinx in his raised hand. Behind him, obliquely, a pedum. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1038 (= Walters 1926, no. 3890 – bearded); Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 443 (Maenad in a similar pose, holding a thyrsus and a theatrical mask); Hamburger 1968, no. 153 (playing the double flute); Henig 1975, no. 68 (playing the double flute, sitting on the trunk of a tree); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 342 (playing lyre, column in front, second half of the 1st century BC); Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 88 (holding thyrsus, animal in front); Guiraud 1988, no. 290 (playing the double flute, also a tree) and 291 (playing the double flute, sitting on a rock); Casal Garcia 1991, no. 76 (playing the double flute); Capolutti 1996, no. 87 (playing the double flute, between a tree and a bush). Discussion: Followers of Dionysos-Bacchus, the satyrs were intimately concerned with drinking, music and revelry and constituted a favorite theme among the Roman soldiers. Their presence on glyptics goes back to the Greek gems of the 6th century BC (Furtwängler 1900, pl. VIII, no. 24) and Etruscan scaraboids of the 5th century BC (Richter 1956, no. 165). In the Roman era they were very popular throughout the Empire (even on amulets), in scenes on which we can see them dancing (Henig 1974, no. 178; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 486), holding or playing a syrinx (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1396; Sternberg 1980, no. 747; Middleton 1991, no. 172), or a lyre (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, nos. 342 and 963), or the double flute (Richter 1956, no. 326; Sena Chiesa 1978, nos. 27 and 71-72; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1400; Guiraud 1988, nos. 290-291). The ring in which this gem is set has a thick, massive, hoop. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 209; Cravinho 2010, 18 (simply cited). Date: 1st century BC-1st century AD. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 189 18. Dark and pale-blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 8.5 x 6.5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 19.5mm; inner diameter: 17mm. Wt: 6.9g. In good condition. From Borralheira (Teixoso). Inv. no. Au 550. Description: Satyr walking to the right, with his hair wrapped around his head. In his outstretched left hand he holds a bunch of grapes and in the right hand a pedum (lagobolon). Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Cap-with-rim Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 2195 (= Marshall 1907, no. 499; Walters 1926, no. 1604); Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 393; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 56, no. 325; Krug 1978, no. 20; Krug 1980, no. 318; Guiraud 1988, no. 255 (with nebris); Johns 1997, no. 227; Middleton 1998, no. 58; Henig 1999, no. 22 (= Henig 1974, no. 163); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 3.75; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 133. Discussion: The ring, which entered the Museum in 1954, can be dated to the 1st century AD (perhaps to the Flavian period). However, it was found within a treasure (the so-called ‘Tesouro da Borralheira’) whose chronology dates from the 1st century AD to the early 3rd century AD (the date on which the treasure was hidden). Publ.: Heleno 1953, 215; Graça and Machado 1970, 380-381, no. 8; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 138; Cravinho 2010, 18 (simply cited). Date: Late 1st century AD. 19. Grey and brownish nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 14 x 11.2 x 2.1mm. Chipped on the lower face. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 621. Description: Satyr walking to the right, with his hair wrapped around his head. In his outstretched left hand he holds a bunch of grapes and in the right a pedum (lagobolon). Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Cap-with-rim Style. Parallels: vide no. 18. Discussion: The scheme of the motif, perhaps derived from a HellenisticRoman pictorial model, also appears on statues and sigillata and was widely spread throughout the Empire. On rare variants, the satyr turns back (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 579) or leans on a column with his legs crossed (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 625; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 41), or sits on a pile of rocks (Berry 1969, no. 215; Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 123; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 174), or has a cock at his feet (Zwierlein-Diehl 190 G. Cravinho 1979, no. 1394), or is accompanied by a dog (Henig 1974, nos. 170-171; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1390; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 173). More often, a hare hangs from his outstretched hand, that a dog or a small goat is trying to catch (Smith 1888, no. 1039; Henig 1974, no. 166; Gramatopol 1974, no. 256; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 69; Krug 1980, nos. 317 and 319-320). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 185; Ponte 1995, 129, no. 233; Cravinho 2010, 18 (simply cited). Date: 1st-2nd century AD. 20. Pale-orange carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 16 x 12.5 x 2.5mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1206. Description: Bearded satyr/Silenos walking to the right, wearing an animal skin (nebris) over his head and his left shoulder, playing the flute held in his raised right hand and holding another flute in the left hand. A pedum is hanging from his left arm. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: King 1866, pl. XLIII, no. 5 (= Richter 1956, no. 326 – playing the double flute); Smith 1888, no. 994 (= Walters 1926, no. 1561 – plasma, 23 x 17mm, playing the double flute); Richter 1971, no. 175 (playing the double flute); Vollenweider 1995, no. 248 (Hellenistic cameo, playing the double flute). Discussion: The motif probably goes back to a 4th-3rd century BC original (Richter 1956, 77) and presents small variants on which the satyrs are depicted in three-quarter front view and playing a syrinx (Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 3.94) or a long horn (Henig 1994, no. 688, eighteenth century?) or sitting frontal and cross-legged holding a flute in each hand (AGDS II, no. 377 – mid. 1st century BC). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 24, no. 8; Cravinho 2015, 102-103, no. 5. Date: 1st-2nd century AD. Goddesses, Personifications and Syncretic (or Pantheistic) Deities Goddesses 21. Dark glass paste, covered by a thin gold and silver patina, oval, convex upper face, set in a Roman bronze gilt ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 13 x 8mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 24mm; inner diameter: 18mm; H: 24.7mm. In good condition. From the necropolis of Azinhaga do Senhor dos Mártires (Alcácer do Sal, Alentejo). Inv. no. 2010.59.41. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 191 Description: Athena Nikephoros standing frontal and facing right, wearing a crested helmet and belted peplos, holding in her outstretched left hand Victoria, which she contemplates, and a spear in the right. In front of her, on the ground, is a shield. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: AGDS II, no. 459, pl. 81; Henig 1974, nos. 243-244; Elliot and Henig 1982, no. 23; Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 154; Guiraud 1988, no. 75; Angeles Gutierez 2008, no. 3. Discussion: The type of Athena Nikephoros (Athena bringing the victory) is based on the Athena Parthenos by Phidias, which originally had a supp ort under the Nike (cf. Richter 1956, no. 269) and already appears on Greek coins and gems. In Rome it became very popular throughout the imperial period, both on coins (especially on aurei of Domitian, denarii of Hadrian and denarii and sestertii of Antoninus Pius – cf. Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1417) and gems of the Augustan period. Publ.: Cravinho 2018, no. 11 (in press). Date: 1st century AD. 22. Dark and greyish blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 12.5 x 10 x 3mm. Chipped on the top edge. From Alentejo (found in a grave or with coins). Inv. no. Au 600. Description: Minerva Pacifera standing, frontal and facing right, with her right leg slightly bent, her head slightly lowered and wearing an Attic helmet with the ribbons floating, a sleeveless belted chiton, and peplos. In her right hand she holds a spear and in the left a hanging olive branch, which she contemplates. By her left side, a shield with a central umbo. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing-Stripy Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLVI, no. 21; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 129; Henig 1974, A73 (4th century AD). Discussion: Minerva Pacifera is the name of Minerva on coins of Marcus Aurelius (cf. Sternberg 1988, no. 434 – sestertius) and other emperors, on which she holds an olive branch. The motif of this gem, copied from a Greek statue (Furtwängler 1900, 222, pl. XLVI, no. 21), must be related to the mythological dispute between Athena and Poseidon, during the choice of the name and ownership of Athens. The rare gems depicting that dispute (cf. Rambach 2011, pl. 1) must derive from a composition that once decorated the west pediment of the Parthenon and is only known by a medallion of Marcus Aurelius (Smith 1888, no. 615) and by a drawing of 1674, by Jacques Carrey. 192 G. Cravinho Publ.: Vasconcelos 1910, 238; Graça and Machado 1970, 375-376, no. 1; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 165; Cravinho 2018, no. 15 (in press). Date: 1st century AD. 23. Orange carnelian, oval, flat upper face, slightly convex lower face and inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F6). Dimensions: 14.1 x 10.1 x 2.5mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1208. Description: Ceres-Fides Publica standing in front view, head turned in profile to the left and the left leg slightly flexed, wearing a belted chiton with overfold. In her raised right hand, she holds a dish of fruit and in the lowered left hand two ears of wheat with their heads pointing down. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Guiraud 1988, no. 221; Gallottini 2012, no. 143. Discussion: The motif, typologically very similar to those of Annona and Aequitas types, appears for the first time on the coins of Domitian, symbolizing both his policy in increasing agriculture and strengthening finances, and the citizens’ faith in their emperor (Fides Publica or Fides Augusti, as we can see on his and Plotina coins). In the field of gems (never on coins) it is very common to find the depiction of an ant seen from above – the insect consecrated to the cult of Juno Lanuvina and perhaps also to that of Ceres (a symbol of fertility, industry and richness). The elongated form of the figure is typical of the Mediterranean area (Guiraud 1996, 83). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 22-23, no. 5; Cravinho 2015, 104-105, no. 6. Date: 2nd century AD. Personifications 24. Dark-brown sard, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 12.2 x 9.9 x 1.7mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 1229. Description: Fortuna standing slightly in three-quarter front view facing right and her hair in a roll around her head. She wears a kalathos, a highbelted chiton and a mantle wrapped round her hips and over her right arm. In her left hand she holds a steering oar attached to a rudder, which lies horizontally behind her, and in her right hand a cornucopia. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Fossing 1929, no. 361 (sard; late 1st century BC); Richter 1956, no. 368; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 575 (1st century BC); AGDS III Kassel, pl. 91, no. 44 (1st century AD); Henig 1974, no. 314 (late 1st century AD); Krug 1980, no. 7 (1st century AD); Platz-Horster 1984, no. 64; Henig and Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 193 Whiting 1987, nos. 97 and 99 (1st century AD); Guiraud 1988, no. 201 (first half of the 1st century AD); Middleton 1991, no. 116; Henig 1994, no. 326 (1st century AD); Capolutti 1996, no. 63 (1st century BC-1st century AD); D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 111 (Isis-Fortuna); Konuk and Arslan 2000, nos. 78-79 (1st century AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 4.58 (F5, 1st century BC-1st century AD); Lafli 2012, nos. 24 and 103. Discussion: The type derives from a prototype that dates back to the Hellenistic period and developed from the type of Artemis-Tyche. However, although its traditional scheme first appeared in Rome on coins of P. Sepullius Macer and T. Sempronius Graco, its symbols are characteristic of the Augustan period. From the coins the type was adopted for gems, becoming the most widespread motif in the imperial period after 70 AD (mainly in the second and third centuries AD), probably because of its auspicious character. According to Hélène Guiraud, this type of rudder is datable from a pre-Vespasianus age (cf. Guiraud 1988, 96, fig. 67). Unpublished. Date: 1st century AD (before Vespanianus). 25. Red jasper, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (F1). Dimensions: 8.5 x 6.7 x 2mm. Chipped on the upper right border, and with a scratch on the left side but repaired. From Alentejo (found in a grave or with coins). Inv. no. Au 602. Description: Nemesis, wingless, standing in slightly three-quarter front view, her head in profile to the right and her hair rolled and tied back in a chignon. Wearing a long and sleeveless chiton, she holds two reins in her right hand and the edge of the chiton with her raised left hand. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Rigid Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Hamburger 1968, no. 93; AGDS II, no. 526 (jasper, 2nd century AD); Gesztelyi 1987, no. 44; Guiraud 1988, no. 394 (holding a triangular object); Gesztelyi 2000, no. 152; Gesztelyi 2013, no. 12. Discussion: Nemesis was a personified emotion that presided over the Destiny (Moira), and a symbol of righteous rage and divine vengeance. Her representations in Roman art, including on coins and gems, probably derive from a cult statue of the 4th-3rd century BC, based on the statue of her sanctuary in Rahmnus. Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 378-379, no. 5 (‘Fortuna’); Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 167. Date: 2nd or 2nd-3rd century AD. 194 G. Cravinho 26. Pale-red jasper, oval, slightly convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 11.2 x 8mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 21.5mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 20mm. Wt: 7.8g. In good condition. From Batalha. Inv. no. Au 130. Description: Victoria standing in slightly three-quarter back view, her head turned to the left, nude, apart from a himation wrapped around her legs. With her left foot up on a stone, she writes on a shield resting on her raised left knee. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1162 (= Walters 1926, pl. XVI, no. 1128); Furtwängler 1896, pl. 24, no. 2792 and pl. 28, no. 3550; Walters 1926, no. 3038; Fossing 1929, no. 625; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 679; Maioli 1971, no. 51; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 540; Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 26; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 344; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 328 (plasma, 1st century AD, palm in front); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 4.34 (glass paste, B3, 1st century AD). Discussion: This type derives from a statue by Lysippos (‘Aphrodite admiring her reflection in the shield of Ares’ – cf. Casal Garcia, no. 328) and appears on statues (cf. the bronze statue of Brescia), reliefs, coins, and gems for purposes of political propaganda. In some variants on gems, Victoria has her foot up on a globe (Richter 1971, no. 215; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 215), or is seated and wears a helmet (Krug 1995, no. 48), or an Erote gives her a palm (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1516), or the shield is propped against a trophy (Middleton 1991, no. 113), a column (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, nos. 1510-1511) or a palm tree (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, nos. 15121515; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 24). Publ.: Chaves 1913, 154; Cardozo 1962, no. 27; Graça and Machado 1970, 381, no. 9; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 198; Cravinho 2010, 17 (simply cited). Date: 1st century AD. 27. Dark and greyish blue nicolo with shades on the upper face, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 16 x 12 x 3.5mm. From the Villa of Torre de Palma. Inv. no. 2001.5.575. Description: Victoria showing one large wing, dressed with a chiton with overfold, walking on tiptoe to the right and holding a laurel wreath in her right hand. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 862 (also a palm; carnelian; 1st-2nd century AD); Guiraud 1988, no. 135 (agate; 1st century AD). Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 195 Discussion: The motif dates back to the Hellenistic period and symbolizes a victory. Unpublished. Date: 2nd century AD. 28. Black and blue nicolo paste, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 14 x 10 x 3.2mm. Chipped on the middle of the left edge. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1199. Description: Victoria wearing a chiton with overfold and flying to the left. She holds a laurel wreath in her left hand and a palm-branch over her right shoulder in the other hand. No ground line. Parallels: Walters 1926, no. 1705; Bonner 1950, no. 227R (magical gem); Richter 1956, no. 354; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 660; Hamburger 1968, no. 60; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 47, no. 222 (2nd-3rd century AD); Gramatopol 1974, no. 320; Henig 1975, no. 89 (2nd century AD); Krug 1975, no. 3 (2nd century AD); Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, nos. 1520-1521 (2nd-3rd century AD) and 1522-1523 (3rd century AD); Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 33 (3rd century AD); Platz-Horster 1984, no. 19; Zienkiewicz 1986, no. 51 (carnelian, 2nd-3rd century AD); Henig and Whiting 1987, nos. 126-133 (2nd century AD); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2815 (2nd century AD); Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 50 (late 2nd-3rd century AD); Henig 1994, no. 323 (2nd century AD); Gesztelyi 2000, no. 130 (2nd century AD); Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 73 (2nd century AD); Hamat 2014, no. 5 (2nd-3rd century AD, reverse). Discussion: The type is of Hellenistic origin and occurs on republican coins struck by L. Piso Frugi in 90-89 BC (Sutherland, 1974, no. 103) and by Augustus, in order to express the idea of Victoria Augusti and as a symbol of good luck and victory. In a Christian context, it would represent the victory of Christianity over paganism (cf. Chelli 2008, 94, Fig. 62). It may be noted that an intaglio in the Berlin collection, with Victoria shouldering a palm (Furtwängler 1896, pl. 54, no. 7281), is inscribed AMMAIENSES. Panofka stated that the legend had to do with the Mesopotamian city of Amida (the modern Diarbakr in Turkey), cited by Ptolomy (Panofka 1852, 68, pl. 2, 28). However, it is very possible that the inscription refers to people from/ living in Lusitanian Ammaia. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 24-25, no. 10; Cravinho 2015, 106-107, no. 7. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. 196 G. Cravinho Syncretic Deities 29. Mottled green and red jasper (heliotrope), oval, flat upper face, set in a modern ring. Gem’s dimensions: 15 x 12mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 24mm; inner diameter: 16mm; H: 21mm. Wt: 5.5g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 638. Description: Syncretic deity winged, standing frontal and facing right, wearing a Corinthian helmet, chiton and himation and holding in her left hand a rudder and two ears of wheat. Below, the letters I (on the left) and Z (on the right). Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1179 (= Walters 1926, no. 1727) and no. 2205; Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 612-613; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 299 (carnelian, 2nd century AD); Pannuti 1994, no. 143. Discussion: This syncretic or pantheistic deity has the attributes of Minerva (helmet), Victoria (wings), Ceres (ears of wheat) and Fortuna (rudder). On a gem in the Thorvaldsen Museum, the figure wears a mural crown just like a marble statue found in Bulla Regia which, at the time of Fossing, was in the Bardo Museum in Tunis (cf. Fossing 1929, no. 670). It is important to emphasize the inscription IZ, the equivalent to HZ (the negative form of ZH), an abbreviation of the Greek word ZHCAIS that corresponds to the Latin expression VIVAS – a common greeting formula on gems, silverware and glass bowls, already used in the pagan era and later becoming especially frequent in Christianity with the addition of the words IN DEO (VIVAS IN DEO). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 205; Ponte 1995, 128, no. 229; Cravinho 2018, no. 22 (in press). Date: 2nd century AD. 30. Orange carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 12.2 x 10.2 x 2.5mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 616. Description: Syncretic deity, winged, standing frontal and her head facing right, wearing an Attic helmet, a stylized kalathos (?), chiton and himation and holding in her left hand a rudder and in her right hand a cornucopia (?) and an ear of wheat. In front of her, between the left arm and the ear of wheat, is an unusual object. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1036; Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 96 (holding an ear of wheat and two poppies; 1st-2nd century AD). Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 197 Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 180; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 236; Cravinho 2018, no. 24 (in press). Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. II – HEROES AND MYTHICAL FIGURES Trojan Cycle 31. Translucent pale-purple amethyst, oval, convex on both faces (Henig’s Type C7?), set in a gold mount with a spine-shaped decoration all along the edge. Dimensions (with the mount): 19 x 27.2 x 10mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 626. Description: Youthful hero fallen with his body in slightly three-quarter front view, his head frontal and the legs flexed, leaning on a large wheel of a chariot not visible in the scene. He is wounded by an arrow in his right thigh and is being assisted by two warriors, one of whom helps him to draw out the arrow. All of them wear a linothorax and helmets whose feathers resemble birds. Behind the wounded warrior, a spear and a standard. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Campanian-Roman Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1448 – ‘sard’ (= Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXIII, no. 2 – ‘karneol’; Walters 1926, pl. XIV, no. 975 – ‘sard’); AGDS II, pl. 84, no. 475 (glass paste; warrior sitting on a pile of stones; 1st century BC). Discussion: The scene must portray an episode in the Trojan War, with the wounded hero Eurypylos (son of Euaemo) hit in a thigh by an arrow by Alexandros, while protecting Ajax with his shield. According to Homer, he was driven in his chariot to the Greek military camp and was helped by Patroklos (Homer, Iliad, XI, 844-848), at his request (Homer, Iliad, XI, 828-836). Scenes from the Trojan War cycle are frequent on gems, some of them depicting two warriors supporting a wounded warrior (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXIII, no. 3; Walters 1926, no. 3263; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 890) or carrying his body (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 672; Spier 1992, no. 182; Capolutti 1996, no. 174). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 190; Ponte 1995, 132, no. 247. Date: 2nd century BC. 32. Orange carnelian, oval, slightly convex upper face and flat lower face, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type A4). Dimensions: 9 x 9.7 x 4.2mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 613. Description: Two naked, bald, long-bearded male figures kneeling, flanking a large shield with a helmet on it. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s 198 G. Cravinho Republican Wheel Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1900, pl. LXI, no. 55 (two young men); Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 974 (republican); Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 453 (seated craftsmen; no helmet). Discussion: Sena Chiesa (see her above parallel) says the motif could represent two Cyclopes preparing the weapons of a hero, perhaps Achilles, or two craftsmen working. The first hypothesis is more plausible. A gem in the Ashmolean Museum with a seated artisan working on a shield probably presents Hephaistos working on the shield of Achilles (Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 10.22) Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 177; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 238. Date: 1st century BC. 33. Red jasper, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 13.2 x 11.2 x 2mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. No. Au 1205. Description: Nude warrior standing in profile to the left, with his right leg bent behind the left, in a Polycleitan stance. He is nude, apart from the chlamys which hangs from his shoulder, and holds in his right hand a spear obliquely upward and a plumed helmet in his left hand. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 238-239; Henig 1974, nos. 457-459; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 743; Vollenweider 1984, no. 462; Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 264; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1627; Guiraud 1998, no. 13 (nicolo paste, 2nd-3rd century AD); Gesztelyi 2000, no. 183. Discussion: The motif, based on a theme of the Trojan War cycle and inspired by the Greek art and gems of the 5th-4th century BC (Beazley 1920, no. 30), is a classic reworking of the Italic motifs in the Etruscan tradition, in which a warrior contemplates the head of an enemy or a helmet symbolizing it. Depicting Achilles holding the sword and the helmet of Peleus after the death of Patroklos (Henig 1974, 65-66) or Mars or Ajax veiling the weapons of Achilles or Theseus (Sena Chiesa 1966, 156), the type was especially popular in the 2nd century AD (Henig 1974, 41). In some variants there is a shield in front of the warrior (Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, nos. 16281629; Chaves and Casal 1995, no. 13; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 182; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 10.7), or a column behind him, on which he rests his elbow (Scatozza Höricht 1989, no. 55 = D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 314), or the warrior places one of his feet up on a globe (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 741). On a rare variant, his shield is ornamented with a star device, Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 199 reminiscent of the Macedonian sun burst (Henig 1994, no. 141). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 19-20, Pl. I-2; Cravinho 2015, 112-113, no. 10. Date: 2nd century AD. Mythical Greek Figures 34. Dark-red carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2a). Gem’s dimensions: 12 x 9mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 21.2mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 20.5mm. Wt: 10,1g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 640. Description: A youth nude and with curly hair (Meleager), is standing in a relaxed pose, in slightly three-quarter front view towards the left, his left leg bearing his weight and the right leg flexed. He leans slightly forward and rests his right arm on a column next to him, holding in his right hand a spear obliquely upward and placing the left hand on his hip, in a Polycletian stance. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Reinach 1895, pl. 4, no. 39; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 9; Boardman 1968, no. 80; Gramatopol 1974, no. 337; Henig 1975, no. 16 (Apollo); Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 214; D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 121; Weiß 2007, no. 254. Discussion: The type is derived from a late Polykleitan statue in the style of Narkissos or Apollo leaning on a small column with a tripod or a lyre on it (D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 121). On Hellenistic and Roman gems he is identified with a mythological figure associated with the hunt – Adonis, Meleagros or Hippolytus, and is sometimes accompanied by a hound (Reinach 1895, pl. 133, no. 24; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 12; Richter 1971, no. 680; Henig 1975, no. 179; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 465; Capolutti 1996, no. 168), or is crowned by an Erote (Neverov 1976, no. 101), or has in front of him a tree (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 11), or an aedicula (AGDS IV, pl. 131, no. 984) or a statue of Artemis (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLII, no. 10; Richter 1956, no. 419; AGDS IV, pl. 131, no. 983; Tamma 1991, no. 61). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 207; Ponte 1995, 128, no. 228. Date: 1st century AD. 35. Black and pale blue-greyish nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 12.2 x 9.5 x 3.2mm. In good condition. From the castrum of Cabeço de Vaiamonte (Monforte). Inv. No. Au 657. 200 G. Cravinho Description: Ganymede standing, in slightly three-quarter front view to the left, nude, apart from drapery round his left arm, and wearing a phrygian cap. In his right hand he holds out a cup and in the left hand a pedum over his left shoulder. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Parallels: King 1872, pl. XI, no. 8 (sard); Smith 1888, no. 602 (= Walters 1926, no. 1286 – nicolo, 14 x 12mm, eagle at feet); Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLIII, no. 26; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 45; Guiraud 1988, no. 452 (nicolo paste, 2nd-3rd century AD). Discussion: According to Furtwängler (1900, 206), this is a sculptural motif created by Leochares. Ganymede, with whom Zeus fell in love and took up to Olympos making him the cup-bearer of the gods, normally appears on gems in association with the eagle: at his feet (Walters, no. 1286), drinking from his cup (Henig 1974, nos. 471-476; Spier 1992, no. 427; Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 647; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 10.58; Guiraud 2008, no. 1258), carrying Ganymede to the Olympos (Richter 1956, no. 425), or forming the shape of his head on which Ganymede wears a Phrygian cap (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 646; Aguilera Aragon 1979, 89-94; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2111). Their depiction on a personal seal perhaps indicates that his possessor believed in immortality. As Henig states, ‘Ganymede carried up to Olimpos and deified, was a natural symbol for Salvation’ (Henig 1974, 103). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 163. Date: 2nd century AD. Mythical Italic Figures 36. Orange carnelian, polished, oval, flat on both faces, with inwardbevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 9.8 x 8.5 x 2.5mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 615. Description: Male figure standing to the left, slightly bent forward and wearing a chlamys, looking at a small figure dressed in a chiton emerging from the ground at his feet and offering him two ears of wheat. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Henig and MacGregor 2004, 106, nos. 10.44-10.45. Discussion: The motif shows what Martin Henig and Arthur MacGregor describe as a ‘prodigy scene’ (Henig and MacGregor 2004, 106). The small figure on the left can be Tages, who appeared at plow-time and taught Etruscans divination, according to a myth told by Cicero (Div, II.50-51) and Ovid (Met, 15.553-559). Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 201 Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 179; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 235. Date: 1st century BC. 37. Mottled green and red jasper (heliotrope), polished, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 8 x 11 x 2.5mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 609. Description: Faustulus and another shepherd, wearing a short tunic and a Faustulus-type animal skin, standing one on each side of a cave, within which a she-wolf (Luperca) is suckling the two twin children (Romulus and Remus). In the background, above the cave, two goats are rearing up against the trunk of a tree, one on each side. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1697 (= Walters 1926, no. 987; Richter 1971, no. 41 – plasma; two trees and two deer fighting); Reinach 1895, pl. 61, no. 54.3. (heliotrope); Furtwängler 1896, pl. 23, no. 2487 (herdsmen side by side) and pl. 26, nos. 3120-3121; AGDS IV, pl. 53, no. 366 (glass paste, 1st century BC-1st century AD); Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 409; Weiß 2007, no. 288 (heliotrope; lupa and three goats on the cave). Discussion: This scene, which also appears on a marble sarcophagus of the Vatican and on the Ara Casalis (cf. Richter 1971, no. 41), alludes to the foundation of Rome as demonstrated by the cave, the she-wolf (Luperca, the Capitoline Wolf), the twins (Romulus and Remus, sons of Mars and Vestal Rhea Silvia) and the tree (the Ficus Ruminalis). The theme already appears on Roman-Campanian coins dating to 335-312 BC (especially in Southern Italy), on didracmas of 269-266 BC and post-235 BC, as well as on sextants of 217-215 BC (although without the representation of the Ruminal fig tree, which only appears in those of 150-140 BC). On a variant, the shewolf only suckles one of the twin children, recalling the myth of Telephos (the legendary founder of Pergamos) being suckled by a hind (Spier 1992, no. 84). Curiously, on the Renaissance medal of Perusia the theme is taken up to identify the two condottieri of the town (Braccio de Montone and Piccinino, being suckled by a female gryphus) to Romulus and Remus (Ferreira and Coutinho 1979, no. 2). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 173; Ponte 1995, 132, no. 242. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. 202 G. Cravinho III – HUMANS Warrior 38. Black and blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 12.2 x 10.3 x 3mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1195. Description: Young warrior standing frontally and facing right, nude, apart from a mantle draped over his right arm. In his right hand he holds a sword and a spear and in the left a sword sheath. A small shield leans towards his left leg. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Marshall 1907, no. 1163 (= Walters 1926, no. 2086; Henig 1974, no. 92 – Alexander; carnelian; 1st or 2nd century AD); Henig 1975, A22 (holding palm?); Guiraud 1988, no. 539 (nicolo, warrior holding a sword, 2nd century AD). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 25-26, no. 12; Cravinho 2015, 114-115, no. 11. Date: 1st-2nd century AD. Herdsman 39. Faint and pale-brownish chalcedony, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 10.5 x 13 x 2mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 618. Description: Shepherd standing in profile to the left, leaning on a staff, wearing a short chiton and a Faustulus-type animal-skin mantle. In front of him, a goat is eating the leaves of the bottom branches of a tree that bends to the right, rounding with the shape of the intaglio. Ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 770; Guiraud 1988, nos. 610-612; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, nos. 1664-1665 (1st-2nd century AD); Krug 1995, no. 58 (1st-2nd century AD, jasper); Gallottini 2012, no. 213. Discussion: This bucolic scene, derived from Hellenistic iconography, is one of the most common motifs on Roman gems, mainly in the second half of the 1st century BC and in the Augustan period, and is frequent in Renaissance painting (specifically, that of Titian and Giorgione) in the background of scenes depicting nymphs and herdsmen. In some variants, the goat is rearing upon its hind legs and browsing from the tree (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 761; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 58, no. 344; Henig 1974, no. 500; MaaskantKleibrink 1978, no. 653; Guiraud 1988, no. 615), from which hangs a hare that a dog is trying to catch (Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 762-766; Berry 1969, no. 81; Henig 1974, no. 499; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1686; Alfaro Giner Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 203 1996, no. 20) – a common motif on bronze coins, cremation urns and PaleoChristian sarcophagi, in which the scene represents the earthly world, with classic reminiscences of the Orpheus myth, and the herdsman the Good Shepherd. It may be noted that the brown taches existing on the gem (mainly on the edges) derive from the organic glue which held the gem in its setting. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 182; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 241. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. Athletes 40. Dark grey and white glass paste, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type B3). Dimensions: 11.2 x 9.7 x 3.5mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 620. Description: Wrestling match between two athletes. One of them lifts the other off the ground. No ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Flat Bouterolle Style. Parallels: Walters 1926, no. 3285; Fossing 1929, no. 1763; Henig 1974, no. 521 (3rd century AD); Gramatopol 1974, no. 253 (two Paniscoi). Discussion: The theme appears on Greek coins of Pamphylia, struck between 420 and 400 BC, and is perhaps related to the fight between Hercules and Antaeus (cf. Henig 1974, no. 437; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 383). In some variants, besides the athletes is their physical trainer (paidotribes) (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 256), or a herm (Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 98), or a judge (Walters 1926, no. 3295; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 468), or a cup is in front of them (Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 37), or a palm (AGDS IV, pl. 135, nos. 1007-1008), or a cup and a palm for the winner of the fight (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1107; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 469). It is also a common motif on the iconography of Eros, which was intended to have a moral connotation: the struggle between Eros and Anteros, that is, between Good and Evil (Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 182; Guiraud 1988, no. 378; Sternberg 1988, no. 700; Spier 1992, no. 204; Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 222; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 123). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 184; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 240. Date: 1st century BC. 41. Dark red carnelian, oval, slightly convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2b). Gem’s dimensions: 7.5 x 6mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 20mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 17.2mm. Wt: 3.9g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. No. Au 641. 204 G. Cravinho Description: Victorious athlete running to the left, in slightly three-quarter front view, holding in his outstretched right hand a laurel wreath and in the left a palm branch over his left shoulder. Ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXVIII, no. 2; Marshall 1907, no. 1291 (= Walters 1926, no. 1161 – Eros with palm); Fossing 1929, no. 977; Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 934-935; AGDS IV, pl. 134, no. 1005; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 471; Guiraud 1988, no. 572; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 372 (plasma, 1st century AD); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1692; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 50. Discussion: The same motif is engraved on a denarius of L. Plaetorus, of c. 75 BC (Mattingly 1927, pl. XIII, no. 15), on a gem from Kassel (Zazoff 1965, no. 33 – Eros as an athlete), on a red jasper found on the floor of a Roman villa dating to c. 4th century BC in Tel-Shikmona, Israel (Shapira 2014) and on a carnelian published by Carina Weiß (Weiß 2009, no. 156). In other variants the athlete holds only a palm branch (Walters 1926, no. 2247; Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 7.43), a laurel wreath (Cravinho 2001, no. 25) or a palm branch and a figurine of Victoria (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 936). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 202; Ponte 1995, 127, no. 227. Date: 1st century AD. Female Portraits 42. Banded green, pale-blue and white glass, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 16 x 12.5 x 3mm. Chipped on the lower edge. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 622. Description: Bust of Cleopatra VII Philopator (?) to the left, with a knotted diadem, her hair tied back in a bun in the usual Greek manner and the clothing shown at the back of the neck. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style (Augustan Era). Parallels: Vollenweider 1995, no. 158 (bust) and no. 166; Walker and Higgs 2001, no. 153 (blue glass intaglio; bust facing left). Discussion: The intaglio belongs to a special type of polychrome and banded glass pastes imitating the banded agate with green, white and blue colors or green, black and white strong colors, which were very popular in the Augustan Era. In fact, they are unreal imitations, since the artists use tones that stand out from the usual production and do not imitate any real stone (Guiraud 1988, 46). Its motif resembles the portraits of Cleopatra on bronze coins of Alexandria (50-31 BC) and marble statues in the British Museum (London), Musei Capitolini (Rome) and Pergamon Museum (Berlin). Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 205 On a contemporary hellenistic cameo she is depicted as Isis and Marcus Antonius as Osiris (Henig 2017, Fig. 13 – sardonyx, 1st century BC). Her portrait also appears on modern gems (Henig 1994, no. 630 – perhaps of the 18th century; Spier 2001, no. 50 – perhaps of the 18th century). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 186; Ponte 1995, 130, no. 239. Date: Third quarter of the 1st century BC. 43. Red and white carnelian, oval, flat upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Henig’s Ring Type XI). Gem’s dimensions: 7 x 5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 17mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 15.2 mm. Wt: 3.8g. Cracked on the upper face. From Mirobriga. Inv. no. Au 4. Description: Drapped bust of Faustina the Younger (?) in profile to the left, with an elongated neck and curled hair tied back in a bun at the nape of the neck. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Hamburger 1968, no. 137; Berry 1969, no. 95; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 837; Henig 1990, no. 64; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2540/14 (third quarter of the 2nd century AD); Henig 1995, 306-308, fig. A, pl. IV (cameo); Vollenweider 2003, no. 178 (c. 170-175 AD) and no. 181 (c. 170-175 AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, nos. 5.42 (2nd century AD) and 5.47-5.48. Discussion: This type of hairstyle is characteristic of the Antonine period (second half of the 2nd century AD), when private portraits were copied from those of Faustina the Younger and her daughters. The engraving technique was kindly explained to us by Dr. Jack Ogden in 2014: ‘The carnelian was shaped and engraved. Next it was covered in an alkali solution (probably sodium carbonate) and heated. This bleached the surface. The upper surface of the gem was then re-polished to leave the white in the depressions. Incidentally, etching does seem to make carnelian more prone to cracking (you will sometimes see a network of surface cracks like ‘crazy paving’, I think probably there from the time of heating rather than developing over time)’. Publ.: Vasconcelos 1905, 379; Vasconcelos 1914, 315; Cardozo 1962, no. 19; Almeida 1964, 68; Graça and Machado 1970, 381-382, no. 10; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 192. Date: Second half of the 2nd century AD. Child portrait 44. Black and blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 6.5 x 5.3mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 18.8mm; 206 G. Cravinho inner diameter: 13mm; H: 17.5mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1212. Description: Child’s head in slightly three-quarter front view to the left, with cheeky face, half-closed mouth, open eyes and curled hair. The deep engraving enhances the black part of the gem and emphasizes the motif. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Extinguishing Pellet Style. Parallels: King 1866, no. 17, fig. on p. 75, no. 6 (= Richter 1956, no. 485 – inscribed in Greek letlers TYXIA); Furtwängler 1896, pl. 36, no. 5273; Vollenweider 1972, pl. 29, no. 1 (bust, 2nd century BC); Pannuti 1975, no. 29 (glass paste); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 707; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 8; Spier 1992, no. 229; Krug 1995, no. 10.4; D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 99 (nicolo); Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 48 (garnet, 2nd1st century BC); Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 464 (nicolo) and no. 466 (jasper, with an inscription). Discussion: The motif is of late Hellenistic, especially Ptolomaic (Henig 1975, no. 46), or early Roman type depicting Eros (or Eros-Horus) and was very popular among the Hellenistic engravers (Alessio 1985, no. 292 – button; Vollenweider 1995, nos. 67 – cameo, Ptolemy IV. and 164 – cameo, Ptolomaic prince) and the sculptors of the Augustan Era (cf. Richter 2004, no. 64; Weiß 2007, no. 401 – carnelian). These small child’s heads (similar to those of Ara Pacis and the small Eros of the Augustus’ statue in the Prima Porta) were intended as portraits, rather than as masks, although the neck is always absent (Richter, 1956, 106). Many of them date between the reign of Tiberius and the Flavian Era (cf. Pannuti 1975, 187, no. 29) and some bear inscriptions in Greek letters (cf. Richter, 1956, no. 485), which may indicate the name of the gem’s owner. It may be noted that the black rim around the blue is very narrow in regard to the later imperial ones. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 21, pl. I-5; Cravinho 2015, 128-129, no. 18. Date: 1st century BC. IV – ANIMALS Group of animals 45. Dark blue and greyish nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 6.5 x 9mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 23.5mm; inner diameter: 16mm; H: 20.5mm. Wt: 11.7g. In good condition. From Beja or surroundings (?). Inv. no. Au 668. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 207 Description: A large lion attacks a fallen goat in profile to the left. He stands on the left hind leg of the goat, who has its legs bent and its head still upright. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Fossing 1929, no. 1301; Henig 1974, no. 638; AGDS IV, pl. 86, no. 663; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 640; Platz-Horster 1984, no. 29 (above an eight-pointed star; chalcedony, 3rd century AD); Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 232 (lion and horse); Scatozza Höricht 1989, no. 7 (= D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 342); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1793; Spier 1992, no. 425 (blue glass paste, 1st century AD); Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 494 (lion and horse). Discussion: The motif, perhaps symbolizing the death devouring life and widely depicted in Eastern art, goes back to gems of the Minoan (Smith 1888, nos. 33 and 37; Beazley 1920, nos. 1-2; Spier 1992, no. 3), Mycenaean (Smith 1888, no. 41b; Beazley 1920, no. 3; Neverov 1976, no. 1) and Greek Geometric periods (Smith 1888, no. 36 = Walters 1926, no. 182) as well as Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals of c. 800 BC (Merrillees 2001, no. 20). In Rome it became very popular on lamps, terra sigillata, sculpture (as a decorative or funerary element), coins and gems and is later found on Sassanian gems and Renaissance and Romantic art. It may be noted that a similar motif was recorded on a gem set in a ring uncovered in Beja (the Roman Pax Julia) or surroundings, once in a private collection, and whose attacked animal was differently interpreted by those who published it (Vasconcelos 1899/1900, 230 – a goat depicted and interpreted as a horse; Vasconcelos 1913a, 502, fig. 265 – a goat depicted and interpreted as a horse; Bélard da Fonseca, 40-42, figs. 5-6 – a horse depicted; Viana 1946, 96; 100, figs. 11-12 – a horse depicted; Viana 1961/1962, 140, figs. 138-139 – a horse depicted); Cardozo 1962, no. 20 – a goat depicted, but interpreted as a horse; Henig 1974, 85 – as a parallel of his no. 636). Might it be the same ring? Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 319-321, no. 150; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 168. Date: 1st century AD. Mammals Deer 46. Black and blue nicolo paste, oval, flat on both faces, with outwardbevelled edges (Henig’s Type F2), set in a fragment of a Roman bronze ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 3a?). Gem’s dimensions: 6.4 x 8mm. Ring’s fragment dimensions – W: 7.4mm; L: 11.3mm; Th: 3.9mm. In good condition. From Torre d’Aires (Algarve). Inv. no. 2006.49.26. 208 G. Cravinho Description: Running deer (?) to the left. No ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 1086-1088 (dog) and no. 1100 (deer). Discussion: The deer/stag, already engraved on Prehistoric seals (Merrillees 2001, no. 1, from the fifth-third millennium BC), was a frequent theme on gems from the Minoan (Smith 1888, no. 59 = Walters 1926, no. 33) and Mycenaean periods (Berry 1969, no. 5) and a very common motif on Greek gems, in both Geometric (Smith 1888, nos. 58 and 101) and Archaic periods (Berry 1969, no. 17; Boardman and Vollenweider 1978, no. 55), GrecoPersian gems (Richter 1956, nos. 138 and 141), archaic scaraboids (Smith 1888, no. 118), scarabs of the 5th century BC (Neverov 1976, no. 43), and Etruscan gems (Smith 1888, nos. 363 and 399; Pannuti 1994, nos. 45 and 47), and is also found on Sassanian seals. The type engraved on our intaglio has a long tradition in the repertoire of the engravers of the GrecoPersian (cf. above), Greek (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XI, no. 25; Richter 1956, no. 109; AGDS II, no. 199; Boardman 2001, fig. 305 and pl. 896), Etruscan (Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XVI, no. 24 and pl. XVII, no. 18; Pannuti 1994, no. 46) and Hellenistic-Roman periods (Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XVII, nos. 19 and 27-28). Sometimes, there is a hound running after the deer (Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 867; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 57), or a tree behind it (Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 177), or a star above the scene (Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 114). Publ.: Nolen 1994, 197, vi-122. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. Dolphin 47. Pale-orange carnelian, with a black inclusion, oval, slightly convex on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (A5). Dimensions: 8 x 11.5 x 4mm. In good condition. From Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 597. Description: Dolphin swimming to the left. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1998; Marshall 1907, no. 420 and no. 446 (= Walters 1926, no. 2503; Richter 1971, no. 379); Hautecoeur et al. 1910, 347, no. 120; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1404; Henig 1974, nos. 645-648; AGDS IV, pl. 179, no. 1305; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 461; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 153; Krug 1980, no. 29; Sternberg 1980, no. 778 (2); Elliot and Henig 1982, no. 14; Mandel-Elzinga 1985, no. 54; Guiraud 1988, no. 703; Scatozza Höricht 1989, no. 15; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1913; Henig 1994, no. 397; Chaves and Casal 1995, no. 45, fig. 1 and no. 51; Krug 1995, no. 18; Capolutti Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 209 1996, no. 151 (nicolo, 1st-2nd century AD); Guiraud 1998, nos. 5-6; Henig 1999, no. 41 (sardonyx, 2nd/3rd century AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, 87, no. 9.2 (C3, 1st century BC-1st century AD); Henig 2008, no. 54. Discussion: This type, which was very common on coins of Syracuse in association with the nymph Arethusa (Hipólito 1996, V-VI; XIII – 5th century BC), was adopted as the emblem of X Legion Fretensis (after the victory of Fretum Siculum in 36 BC) and also of Legio II Augusta in Britain. Linked to Poseidon-Neptune and a symbol of the seas and of success, in an allegorical sense the dolphin symbolized the journey of the soul across the ocean to the Isles of the Blessed, where Apollo also reigned. This funerary connotation is especially important in Christian art from the 3rd century AD onwards, normally in association with the anchor (symbolizing Christ as the savior anchor) and the cross or the trident (alluding to the crucified Christ). However, the depiction of a dolphin (like that of Eros) was also suitable as a gift to a loved one (cf. Guiraud 1998, 133, no. 6). On the other hand, the fact that the dolphin (like fish) appears on gems whose chronology extends from the 2nd to the 4th century AD (that is, before the Constantinian Era) allows us to conclude that marine animals were one of the most frequent ambiguous (or neutral) motifs used both by pagans and by Christians (Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2011, 114). Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 383, no. 14; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 159; Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2011, 117, Pl. 6. Date: Late 2nd-3rd century AD. Goat 48. Dark and pale blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 8.4 x 10mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 19.8mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 17mm. Wt: 4.9g. In good condition. From a grave in Alentejo. Inv. no. Au 7. Description: Goat’s head in profile to the right. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1141; AGDS IV, pl. 162, no. 1200; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1150 (head and trunk). Discussion: The motif is quite rare on gems, except when the goat’s head is combined with a head (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 189; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2740) or a body of another animal (Middleton 1991, no. 138), creating a fantastic creature. Publ.: Vasconcelos 1898, 288-289, figs. 3-3a; Vasconcelos 1906, 285; 210 G. Cravinho Vasconcelos 1908a, 356; Bélard da Fonseca 1945, 40, 1; Cardozo 1962, no. 24; Graça and Machado 1970, 384, no. 16; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 199. Date: 1st century AD. Hare 49. Red carnelian, oval (almost circular), slightly convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 2b). Gem’s dimensions: 6 x 5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 14mm; inner diameter: 10mm. Chipped on the upper face. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 1223. Description: Recumbent hare in profile to the left. Below, a carrot and above a six-pointed star. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1356 (mouse); Berry 1969, no. 217 (carnelian); AGDS IV, pl. 167, no. 1233; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1905 (holding a nut, 3rd century AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 9.32. (carnelian; 2nd-3rd century AD). Discussion: Symbol of fertility and of good luck, the hare became a popular motif in the pre-Roman Era on the coins of Messina, Etruscan art and coins and Calenian pottery (Sena Chiesa 1966, 393-394). On gems it is sometimes depicted by a tree (Amorai-Stark 1999, fig. 23) or leaping (Henig and MacGregor 2004, nos. 9.33-9.34) or, in a comic variant, walking on its hind legs and wearing a hat and a coat (Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 9.36). It may be noted that the hare also appears on a nicolo paste set in a gold ring from Fiães (North Portugal) but surrounded by the inscription AVITI – the genitive of Avitus, a very frequent anthroponym in the Iberia Peninsula, especially in Portugal, as well as its female equivalent Avita (cf. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and Hispania Epigraphica online Database). Unpublished. Date: 1st century AD. Horse 50. Banded agate, with vertical brown and white bands, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 9.4 x 13.2 x 2.3mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. 1203. Description: Grazing horse standing in profile to the left, with his head lowered and left leg raised. In front of him a plant. Ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Republican Flat Bouterolle Style. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 211 Parallels: Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 181 (3rd century AD); Gallottini 2012, no. 226. Discussion: The type, perhaps the most frequent in the depiction of horses on Roman gems, appears already upon Greek scaraboids of the 5th century BC (Richter 1956, no. 106), Greco-Persian seals of the 4th century BC (Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 49), and drachmas from Thessalia of 350 BC (Sternberg 1980, no. 79), and continued to be employed for Sassanian seals and gems (Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 156 – 5th century AD; Henig 1994, no. 420 – 4th or 5th century AD). In some variants there is an inscription (Henig 1974, no. 585 – HRAKLIDHC) or on the field of the gem a tree (Middleton, 1991, no. 226) or a star and/or a crescent (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1052; Richter 1971, no. 375; Henig 1994, no. 223) – a variant dating at least from the 4th-3rd century BC (Middleton 1991, Ap. I, no. 1). It may be noted that the horse was a popular theme on bronze statues, lamps and mosaics, and in present day Portugal perhaps because Lusitania was one of the main sources of horses for the chariot races. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 26, no. 13; Cravinho 2015, 116-117, no. 12. Date: End of the 1st century BC. Lion 51. Dark red carnelian with lighter shades, circular, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type C3). Dimensions: 13.5 x 14.5 x 4.2mm. In good condition. From the castrum of Cabeço de Vaiamonte (Monforte). Inv. no. Au 656. Description: Lion walking to the left, holding in its jaws an animal’s head (perhaps that of a bull). Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Flat Bouterolle Style. Parallels: Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XIV, no. 42; Gramatopol 1974, no. 386; Henig 1974, nos. 629 and 635; AGDS IV, pl. 155, no. 1151 and pl. 226, nos. 1710-1711; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 718; Krug 1980, no. 206 and no. 397; Pannuti 1983, no. 249; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1823 and no. 2735; Henig 1991, fig. 11 (= Henig 1999, no. 34 – jasper, 2nd/3rd century AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 9.14; Henig 2008, no. 44; Gallottini 2012, no. 319 (magical gem). Discussion: This association of lion and head of an animal (usually the bull) was a symbol of death, since the head symbolized the sacrificial animal and the lion the voracious power of death, over which the man was believed to triumph. The type goes back to the Greek Archaic period, with several variants and sometimes the depiction of astral symbols (AGDS III Kassel, 212 G. Cravinho pl. 105, no. 155; Gramatopol 1974, no. 382; AGDS IV, pl. 267, no. 83; Krug 1980, no. 393; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 404; Guiraud 2008, no. 1326). In that case, the motif could also represent the constellation Leo or be a talisman, protecting the owner of the intaglio against his enemies. More rarely, from the lion’s mouth hangs a branch (Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 1161-1162) – a motif typical of Greek gems and Siciliot coins probably inspired by motifs of the late 5th century BC. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 162. Date: 1st century BC. 52. Black jasper (?), oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 9 x 11.5 x 1.5mm. Chipped on the lower face, near the edge. From the villa of Torre de Palma. Inv. no. 2001.5.214. Description: Recumbent lion facing to the left, with his head resting on his front paw and the tail curving round beside him. Ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Campanian-Roman Style. Parallels: Fossing 1929, 187, no. 1292, pl. XV; Middleton 1991, 120, no. 216 (sardonyx, c. last third of the 1st century BC); Spier 1992, 86, no. 197. Discussion: Recumbent lions on gems are few compared with other types and they were probably just symbols of strength (Middleton 1991, 120). Sometimes the lion lies under a tree (Gramatopol 1974, no. 387) or seems to have something under its front paws (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1175; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 132). It may be noted that the color of the gem changes to blue when put under a direct light. Unpublished. Date: Last third of the 1st century BC. 53. Red carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with outward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F3). Dimensions: 9 x 12.5 x 4mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 623. Description: Lion running to the left in a kind of flying gallop, with his long tail raised. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Parallels: Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XIV, no. 4; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XII, no. 21 and pl. XLV, no. 22; Richter 1956, no. 501; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1172; Henig 1974, no. 640; AGDS IV, pl. 156, no. 1155; Neverov 1976, no. 134R (1st century BC); Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 719 (2nd century AD); Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 130; Krug 1980, nos. 26 and 212; DimitrovaMilčeva 1980, no. 194 (= Ruseva-Slokoska 1991, no. 247) and no. 196; Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 213 Pannuti 1983, no. 252; Henig and Whiting 1987, no. 360 (1st century AD); Guiraud 1988, no. 653; Herfort-Koch 1988, no. 37, pl. 23, no. 13; ZwierleinDiehl 1991, no. 1827; Spier 1992, no. 296 (banded agate, F3, 1st century AD); Guiraud 1998, no. 14; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 205; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 109 (2nd century AD); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 9.7; Fabregat 2011/2012, no. 1.6. Discussion: The motif, which goes back to Greco-Persian scaraboids of the 5th century BC (Henig 1994, no. 63) and lasted on Greek, Hellenistic, Roman and Sassanian gems and glass pastes (Middleton 2001, no. 40), perhaps depicts a lion jumping over a victim, not visible in the scene. On some Roman gems the lion is portrayed with his mouth wide open as if roaring (Richter 1956, no. 503; Krug 1980, no. 396; Middleton 1991, no. 214; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1822), or there is a star above him (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1173) or a scorpion below him (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1174; Krug 1980, no. 209; Dimitrova-Milčeva 1980, no. 228; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 105). Thus, although the lion was linked to Jupiter, these two last variants must allude to the zodiacal signs of Leo and Scorpio. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 187. Date: 2nd century AD. Birds Peacock 54. Brown and pale-brown banded agate (horizontal bands), oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 15.5 x 11.5 x 1.8mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. 1228. Description: Peacock facing left, perched on the right hand side of a short pedestalled bacin, from which an ear of wheat grows. The base of the pedestal seems to be formed by three small pellets (?). Cf. Sena Chiesa’s Officina del Tirso. Parallels: Furtwängler 1896, pl. 19, no. 2073 (above, a bee or a fly); pl. 40, no. 5766 (in front, a butterfly and a caduceus) and pl. 46, no. 6587; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1317; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 763 (branch in front; 1st-2nd century AD); Guiraud 1988, nos. 855 (glass paste; 1st century AD) and 856; Middleton 1991, no. 15 (another long-tailed bird on the bacin). Discussion: The intaglio belongs to a series of large agates produced in Aquileia, engraved by artists from central Southern Italy, or by local artists influenced by them. The vase/fountain engraved on it was very popular in Roman pagan times on decorative motifs of mosaics and mural paintings, symbolizing prosperity and abundance and, in Christian times, Life and 214 G. Cravinho Salvation (Middleton 1991, 40, no. 15). The animal depicted was the monster Argos Panoptes, killed by Hermes and transformed into an exuberant bird by Hera with whose cult it was associated, and was a sign of luxury, a key note of locus amoenus and a symbol of Apotheosis and Eternity (Middleton 1991, 40, no. 15). Unpublished. Date: First half of the first century BC. Cock 55. Dark green jasper, oval, flat and polished upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 3a). Gem’s dimensions: 7 x 9mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 21mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 16mm. Wt: 2.9g. In good condition. From a grave in Rouca (grave no. 36), Alandroal (Alentejo). Inv. no. Au 128. Description: Cock standing in profile to the left, with a branch in front. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Small Grooves Style. Parallels: Marshall 1907, no. 203; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1340; Guiraud 1988, no. 754; Gesztelyi 2000, no. 226; Gesztelyi 2001, no. 53 (fighting cock; in front of him ‘the branch of victory’). Discussion: The association of the cock (one of the animals associated with Mercurius) with a branch acquired several symbolic meanings, depending on the animals, objects (aerarium, cornucopiae) or plants (ear of wheat, poppy, bunch of grapes, cherry, pomegranate, palm) also depicted in the scene. In a small variant of the motif, instead of a branch there is an ear of wheat (Henig 1974, no. 678; Middleton 1991, no. 244) and in another one, the animal is an eagle (Krug 1995, no. 5; Gallottini 2012, no. 245). Publ.: Cardozo 1962, no. 26; Graça and Machado 1970, 383-384, no. 15; Henig 1974, 90, no. 678; 116, App.82 (mentioned as a parallel); Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 194. Date: 2nd century AD. 56. Orange carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 8.5 x 10.5 x 2.2mm. Chipped on the lower face, up to the upper face, affecting the lower top of the border and the left side of the gem. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 612. Description: Victorious cock standing in profile to the left, with a palm behind his right wing, a large vase in front of him and above it a laurel wreath. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 215 Parallels: Middleton 1991, no. 243 (kantharos in front, 1st century BC1st century AD); Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 1961 (on the vase; 1st-2nd century AD). Discussion: The intaglio depicts the winning cock of a fight, as attested by the laurel wreath and the palm branch – symbolic elements that appear already in Greek coins of the 6th century BC and are very common on lamps, Roman art and tombstones or cremation urns, where they acquire a funeral connotation symbolizing the soul of the deceased and his triumph over death. On certain Glyptic variants, he only has a palm in his beak, or the palm is caught by one of his legs or is emerging behind his body as if held by his wing. The vessel on the scene was a decorative and symbolic element in Antiquity. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 176; Ponte 1995, 132, no. 244. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. Owl 57. Brownish jasper, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 6.5 x 7.5 x 1.8mm. In good condition. From the old cathedral of Idanha-a-Velha. Inv. no. Au 1004. Description: Owl standing to the left on a round shield. In front, a caduceus. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Furtwängler 1896, pl. 53, no. 7063 (on a round cist); MaaskantKleibrink 1978, no. 231 (also a corn ear); Krug 1980, no. 433 (glass paste, 1st century AD); Spier 1992, no. 305 (pedum behind); Krug 1995, no. 10.20 (holding a spear in its paws). Discussion: As a symbol of Athena, the owl is often depicted perched on a shield (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 231) or on a globe (Richter 1971, no. 33). In another variant, the owl forms the body of Athena (Henig 1975, no. 169), sometimes perched on a beam of rays resting on a globe (Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XXVI, nos. 61-62; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XLVI, no. 30; Walters 1926, nos. 2484-2485; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1015; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 60) – a type which also appears on a denarius of L. Valerius Acisculus, dating to 45 BC. In more complex variants, above the owl there are two figures of Isis-Fortuna clasping hands and over them the heads of Helios and Selene (Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2820), or the owl is on the central altar of a panoply of arms (Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2018), or on an altar flanked by a scorpion and a shield with a helmet on it (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 232). The owl on our gem is of the Bubo Bubo Hispanus type. Unfortunately we were not given a good picture of it. 216 G. Cravinho Publ.: Cravinho 1999, 53, no. 17. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD? Raven 58. Dark-blue and greyish nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4), set in a Roman gold ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 3f/Henig’s Ring Type VIIIb). Gem’s dimensions: 6.2 x 9mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 19mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 19mm. Wt: 2.3g. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 671. Description: Raven standing to the right on a laurel branch. Ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. Parallels: Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XXI, nos. 7 and 12-13; Marshall 1907, no. 448 (parrot?) and no. 487; Fossing 1929, nos. 1466-1467; Breglia 1941, no. 581 (pheasant?); Richter 1956, no. 525; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1309; Henig 1975, no. 224; AGDS IV, pl. 174-175, nos. 1278-1281; Casal Garcia 1980, no. 4; Pannuti 1983, no. 276; Platz-Horster 1984, no. 57 (raven and two ears of wheat); Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 673 (also a star); DimitrovaMilčeva 1987, no. 25; Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 109; Guiraud 1988, nos. 770-771; Scatozza Höricht 1989, no. 56; Middleton 1991, no. 242; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 435 (carnelian, 2nd-3rd century AD, parrot?); Spier 1992, nos. 303-304; Krug 1995, no. 10.19; D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, nos. 241 and 319. Discussion: The raven, a symbol of prosperity and gifted with prophetic powers, besides being one of the symbols of Apollo, was linked to the cult of Mithras Tauroctonos and, in Roman Gaul, to that of Lugus and other Celtic anonimous divinities. A common motif on Mithraic reliefs, bronze statues and bronze coins, the raven originates several variants according to the objects on the scene: a laurel leaf (D’Ambrosio and De Carolis 1997, no. 221), a tripod flanked by a laurel branch (Walters 1926, no. 2631) or by the serpent Python (Iñiguez 1989, no. 32.76), a lyre (Krug 1980, no. 242), or a lyre and a quiver (Krug 1980, no. 432). With regards to our intaglio, the fact that it is set in a ring whose chronology extends throughout the 4th and 5th centuries AD allows us to state that its possessor was very likely a Christian. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 201; Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2011, 121, pl. 28. Date: 3rd-4th century AD. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 217 Insects Fly 59. Golden yellowish chalcedony (honey color), circular, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type B3). Dimensions: 8.5 x 8 x 2.8mm. In good condition. From Alentejo (found in a grave or with coins). Inv. no. Au 603. Description: Fly seen from above. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Republican Wheel Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, nos. 2022 (cameo), 2023 and 2025 (= Walters 1926, no. 2566 – with an inscription); Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XXIII, no. 39 (= Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 679); Furtwängler 1896, pl. 53, no. 7076; Pannuti 1983, no. 317 (cameo); Tamma 1991, no. 162 (ancient?); Guiraud 2008, no. 1379 (glass paste; 10 x 9 x 2mm; 1st century BC-1st century AD); Gallottini 2012, no. 257; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 173 (3rd-2nd century BC). Discussion: The fly was a negative symbol in Antiquity – a connotation that appears already in the Iliad and lasted in the Paleo-Christian period to express the corruption of the flesh (i.e., carnal desire) and to identify the fly with Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies (Chelli 2008, 69). However, its presence on tombs certainly had a chthonic meaning, evoking the eternal summers of the Elysian Fields. Its oldest depictions date back to Greek intaglios of the 5th century BC (Furtwängler 1900, pl. IX, no. 50 and pl. X, no. 53; Boardman and Vollenweider 1978, no. 110) and to rings of the 4th-3rd centuries BC (Marshall 1907, no. 1260). Some variants of the motif also have in association a lunar crescent (Walters 1926, no. 2564), a plant (Smith 1888, no. 2026; Henig 1975, no. 230), an animal (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1371) or an object (Middleton 1991, no. 258 – caduceus), giving the gem a symbolic meaning. But the conjugation of several elements, defining the contour of his body and originating a grotesque figure must have had a magical meaning (Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXVI, no. 83; Walters 1926, no. 2463). Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 382-383, no. 13; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 168. Date: 1st century BC. 218 G. Cravinho V – MASKS AND MYTHICAL BEASTS Masks 60. Dark amethyst-coloured glass paste, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type C3). Dimensions: 15.5 x 12.5 x 7mm. Chipped on the upper face, between the mouth and the nose of the engraved figure. From the castrum of Cabeço de Vaiamonte (Monforte). Inv. no. Au 607. Description: Male comedy mask of the ‘angry old man’ type in profile to the left, with a long beard, wrinkled face, aquiline nose and protuding chin and brow. Parallels: Reinach 1895, pl. 126, no. 64; Furtwängler 1896, pl. 18, no. 1937 (= Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXVI, no. 49; AGDS II, pl. 74, no. 419), pl. 18, no. 1939 and pl. 37, no. 5264; Furtwängler 1900, pl. XXVI, nos. 47, 50 and 51 (= Neverov 1976, no. 73) and pl. XXVI, nos. 54-55; Fossing 1929, no. 487; Richter 1956, no. 241; AGDS IV, no. 630; Krug 1980, no. 377; Platz-Horster 1984, no. 118; Neverov 1985, no. 22 (cameo); Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, nos. 612-613; Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 34; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 99 (sardonyx, 1st century BC); Henig 1994, no. 145 (early 1st century BC); Chaves and Casal 1995, no. 22 (below a pedum); Henig and MacGregor 2004, nos. 8.7 and 8.8 (C3 e B3, respectively; 1st century BC). Discussion: The motif, a favorite theme of gem engravers and lamps artists since the Hellenistic period and the most popular type of the New Comedy, is of Italic origin and was very popular in the 2nd and 1st century BC, especially on glass paste, sometimes clean-shaven (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 143; Krug 1980, no. 378; Casal Garcia 1991, no. 22) or frontal (Berry 1969, no. 231 – cameo; Henig 1994, no. 286). Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 382, no. 11; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 160. Date: Second-first half of the 1st century BC. 61. Dark-orange glass paste, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face (C3), set in a fragment of a Roman copper ring (Guiraud’s Ring Type 1b). Gem’s dimensions: 10 x 8 x 4mm. Ring’s fragment dimensions: diameter: 17mm; inner diameter: 14mm; H: 16mm. Wt: 2.3g. In good condition. From the castrum of Cabeço de Vaiamonte (Monforte). Inv. no. Au 658. Description: Comedy mask of the ‘angry old man’ type, in profile to the left, with a long, thin pointed beard, aquiline nose, furrowed brow and protuding chin. Parallels: Furtwängler 1896, pl. 57, no. 7793 (a pedum below); Berry 1969, Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 219 no. 202; AGDS III Kassel, pl. 68, no. 462; AGDS IV, pl. 260, no. 48; Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 21; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 144; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 848 (1st century BC) and no. 1121 (second half of the 1st century BC); Krug 1980, no. 378; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, no. 613; Guiraud 1988, no. 888; Middleton 1991, no. 267; Spier 1992, nos. 190 and 324?; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 138 (a pedum below, late 1st century BC); Wagner and Boardman 2003, no. 101, pl. 24; Lopez de la Orden 1990, no. 94, pl. X. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 193. Date: Second-first half of the 1st century BC. Mythical Beasts Pegasus 62. Brown and white banded agate (horizontal bands), oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 25.5 x 16.5 x 3.8mm. Cracked on the left side of the upper face. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1204. Description: Pegasus to the right, with his long wings spread above his back as if preparing to take flight to the right over Bellerophon, who has his left leg bent and is resting his right hand on a shield with a central umbo and is holding in his left hand a sword and a spear. Ground line. MaaskantKleibrink’s Republican Extinguishing Pellet Style. Parallels: Smith 1888, no. 1265 (= Imhoof and Keller 1889, pl. XXVI, no. 20; Walters 1926, no. 1913, pl. LIII, no. 1912 – nicolo, standing Bellerophon holding a spear and a rein of flying Pegasus); Guiraud 1988, no. 805 (incomplet; perhaps an exact parallel). Discussion: The large dimensions of this intaglio may indicate that it belonged to one of the many dactyliotecae which were very popular in those ages (1st century BC-1st century AD, when this motif was very common). Its motif, probably copied from a pre-Roman prototype (a Greek or Etruscan gem or relief) and theme of many mosaics since the 8th century BC (cf. Bairrão Oleiro 1992, 43), may represent the precise moment at which Pegasus flew to Olympus throwing down Bellerophon, although the warrior is not tumbling from his mount nor extended prone on the ground. Another possibility is that this is an adaptation of the type of the horse rearing over an enemy kneeling under his front hoofs (Sternberg, 1980, no. 338 – on a Trajan coin from 105 AD) or based on the Hellenistic scene of the Battle of Issos in which Alexander triumphed over the Persians. It may be noted that the artist seems to have chosen the dark band of the gem for engraving the soil, the warrior and the back hoofs of the horse while the milky white 220 G. Cravinho one to engrave the sky through which the divine horse begins his flight. Guiraud’s gem (see above), unhappily incomplete, may be an exact parallel. In more complex scenes, Bellerofont kills the mythical Chimera – a theme much later transposed in Christian art into that of Saint George killing the Dragon. Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 25, no. 11; Cravinho 2015, 110-111, no. 9. Date: 1st century BC-1st century AD. Capricorn 63. Orange carnelian, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 7 x 10.5 x 2.5mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 611. Description: Capricorn to the left. Below, a rudder. Cf. Sena Chiesa’s Officina della Sfinge. Parallels: Reinach 1895, pl. 70, no. 90.5; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1238; AGDS IV, pl. 154, no. 1444 (palm on his back); Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 158 (Augustan date); Pannuti 1983, no. 125 (with a star); Guiraud 2008, no. 1399 (1st century BC). Discussion: The Capricorn was a mythical beast (half ibex-half fish) and a member of the marine thiasos that first appears on Roman gems of the 2nd century BC (cf. Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 91). It became very popular during the Roman civil wars and in the Augustan period. It was Augustus’ choosen zodiac sign and perhaps symbolized the rebirth of the Sun (since, in astrological terms, the Capricorn begins with the winter solstice) and therefore that of Apollo, his personal protector. Furthermore, it also had a political meaning (Sena Chiesa 1978, 124), symbolizing the figure of princeps, justice and the new order created by Augustus, or the figure of Pan whom Zeus had honored with a place among the stars for his contribution to the giant Typhon’s defeat. An emblem of six of the nine Augustan legions, his frequent association with certain symbolic elements (trident, globe, cornucopia and rudder) is a clear sign of political propaganda. On our gem, its relation with Augustus is clear, since the Capricorn was his astrological sign and the rudder symbolized his good qualities as a princeps. Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 175; Ponte 1995, 132, no. 245. Date: 1st century BC-1st century AD. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 221 VI – SYMBOLS, OBJECTS AND SYMBOLIC COMPOSITIONS Symbols 64. Brown sard, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type B3). Dimensions: 13 x 11.2 x 3.7mm. In good condition. From the castrum of Cabeço de Vaiamonte (Monforte). Inv. no. Au 608. Description: Rhyton-shaped cornucopia, with stylized goat’s head with small horns terminal, two horizontal bands and a fillet falling down beside it on the left. It is filled with fruit (pomegranates) and a bunch of grapes hanging down on either side. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Italic a Globolo-like Style. Parallels: Vollenweider 1984, no. 329; Alessio 1985, no. 228 (blue glass paste, convex, first quarter of the 3rd century BC); Mandrioli Bizarri 1987, no. 19 (first half of the 1st century BC); Amorai-Stark 1993, no. 127; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 149 (garnet; 2nd-1st century BC); Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 11.40 (1st century BC-1st century AD). Discussion: The cornucopia, whose depictions are of Alexandrian origin, was one of the attributes of Tyche-Fortuna and a symbol of abundance and prosperity. Depicted on Ptolomaic and Roman coins of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC (Sternberg 1980, nos. 11-12; Hipólito 1996, nos. 125-126), they became very popular on republican (Mattingly 1927, pl. XIX, no. 14, pl. XXI, no. 1, pl. XXIV, no. 7, pl. XXVIII, no. 4) and imperial coins (Mattingly 1927, pl. XLVI, no. 20; Sternberg 1980, no. 418). On Roman rings (Alessio 1985, no. 219; Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 192) and gems (perhaps symbolizing, in addition to fertility, a particular political party) it was especially common from the 1st century BC onwards (cf. Konuk and Arslan 2000, no. 150 – 2nd century AD). However, in the Augustan period it became a clear symbol of political propaganda, perhaps because of its shape in the form of a goat’s head, which led to its association with Almathea and the constellation of Capricorn (the choosen Zodiac sign of Augustus). In the Christian period of the Empire (in which it appears on wall paintings and mosaics, although sometimes is replaced by a basket with fruits), the cornucopia symbolized the abundance of divine grace (Chelli 2008, 54). Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 386, no. 19; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 161. Date: Mid. 1st century BC. 65. Milky white and honey colour layered agate, oval, convex upper face and flat lower face (Henig’s Type B3). Dimensions: 14 x 12 x 3.2mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 598. 222 G. Cravinho Description: Rhyton-shaped cornucopia, with stylised goat’s head with small horns terminal, two horizontal bands and a fillet falling down beside it on the right. It is filled with fruit (pomegranates) and a bunch of grapes hanging down on either side. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Italic a Globolo-like Style. Parallels: Fossing 1929, no. 335; Breglia 1941, no. 595; Righetti 1955, no. 172; Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1422; Guiraud 2008, no. 1392 (sard, 1st century BC). Publ.: Graça and Machado 1970, 386-387, no. 20; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 170. Date: Mid. 1st century BC. Musical Object 66. Black and pale-blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 9.6 x 7 x 2.5mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. 1194. Description: Lyre on a base, with high, symmetrical curved arms of same length, a straight yoke, three strings and a crescent-like body. Its sound box is missing. No ground line. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Rigid Chinmouth-nose Style. Parallels: Zwierlein-Diehl 1969, 530, pl. 3 (two strings; carnelian, Augustan period); AGDS IV, pl. 46, no. 305a (three strings), pl. 185, no. 1344 (five strings, nicolo; 9.4 x 7.1 x 2.5mm; 1st century AD) and pl. 189, no. 1392 (two strings); Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 439; Zwierlein-Diehl 1986, nos. 217-218. Discussion: The motifʼs basic engraving lines reach the lower darker blue layer and thus the motif contrasts strongly with the upper light-blue surface. The lyre depicted on it seems to be a stylization of one of the old eastern lyres (cf. type B of the Jewish coins of Bar-Khochba), although it has no soundbox. On the other hand, the motif has no ground line, as if suggesting that the lyre is floating in space. This unreal representation confirms its symbolic meaning as an attribute of Apollo, Achilles and Orpheus and as a symbolic object for both Jews and Christians. Actually, it was one of the objects that the Christians could have engraved upon their rings, according to Clement of Alexandria. Publ.: Cravinho 2004, 232-242; Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2006, 521-529; Cravinho 2009, 18 (simply cited); Cravinho 2010, 20, Pl. I-3; Cravinho 2015, 118-119, no. 13. Date: Late 2nd-3rd century AD or 3rd century AD. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 223 Symbolic Compositions 67. Greenish glass paste with yellowish concretions, oval, flat on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F1). Dimensions: 13.2 x 11.1 x 2.9mm. In good condition. Find place unknown. Inv. no. Au 610. Description: Vase on a high column containing two ears of wheat and flanked by two cornucopiae with a bird perched on each one. Below, a dolphin on either side of the column. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Classicizing Style. Parallels: Gonzenbach 1952, no. 40; Sena Chiesa 1966, nos. 1431-1432; Gramatopol 1974, no. 628; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 803 (trophy on crater; 1st-2nd century AD); Sena Chiesa 1978, no. 164 (carnelian; second half of the 1st century BC); Vollenweider 1984, no. 330 (carnelian set in a ring; 20 x 16.5mm; 1st century BC); Guiraud 1988, no. 854 (nicolo paste; 12 x 9 x 2mm; second half of the 1st century BC); Middleton 1991, no. 262 (convex carnelian; 13 x 10mm; 1st-2nd century AD); Capolutti 1996, no. 150. Discussion: The motif is an example of political propaganda, representing the abundance and fertility of the Augustan period. In some variants, the combination of symbols and animals adds more complex symbolism (Gramatopol 1974, no. 632; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, nos. 1933 and 2099). Publ.: Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 174; Ponte 1995, 132, no. 243. Date: 1st century BC-1st century AD. 68. Black and pale-grey nicolo paste, circular, flat on both faces, with outward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F2). Dimensions: 11 x 4mm. Chipped on the right edge. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1196. Description: Trident cut by two parallel lines. Parallels: Weiß 2007, no. 601. Discussion: The motif, although difficult to identify, probably had a symbolic meaning and could be derived from two clasped hands holding two cornucopia beside an ear of corn. Publ.: Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2006, 543; Cravinho 2010, 26, no. 14; Cravinho 2015, 122-123, no. 15. Date: 1st century AD. 69. Black and blue nicolo paste, oval, flat on both faces, with outwardbevelled edges (Henig’s Type F2). Dimensions: 10.9 x 8.8 x 3.1mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1198. Description: Face to face, two ravens perched on a huge krater. MaaskantKleibrink’s Imperial Incoherent Grooves Style. 224 G. Cravinho Parallels: Furtwängler 1896, pl. 58, no. 7915; Platz-Horster 1984, no. 37 (red jasper, 3rd century AD); Guiraud 1988, nos. 831-833 (nicolo-pastes, F2, 2nd-3rd century AD); Krug 1995, no. 71 (1st century AD). Discussion: The association of birds with a vase, placed in front of them (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 182; Casal Garcia 1991, nos. 426 and 433) or on which they are perched, besides constituting an important decorative element (especially on mosaics and wall paintings) is a symbolic theme which transited from Pagan to Christian art, its popularity peaking in the 18th-19th centuries. Publ.: Cravinho 2015, 124-125, no. 16. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. 70. Black and very pale-blue nicolo, oval, flat on both faces, with double bevelled edges (Henig’s Type F4). Dimensions: 12.3 x 10.8 x 3.7mm. In good condition. From a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. 1193. Description: A seven-branched Menorah with a tripod base and seven branches curved and plain, ending with light fittings, short lamps and flames. The flames are symmetrically arranged: three left-side flames and three right-side flames bent to centre; an upright central flame. A realistic open palm branch (lulav) on the right; a curved ramʼs horn (shofar), with a flat bulging top appearing like a bent nail and a realistic citron (etrog) with a short stem and two leaves on the left. Maaskant-Kleibrink’s Imperial Rigid Chin-mouth-nose Style. Parallels: Hachlili 2001, IS 16.1, IS 16.4, IS 16.9, IS 16.14-16.15 and 16.17, IS 16.18 (glass pendant), IS 16.24 (bracelet), D 11.7 (seal), 434, D 11.13 (seal), D 11.23 (seal); Spier 2007, no. 947 (nicolo, objects on the ground line). Discussion: The motifʼs basic engraving lines of the intaglio are cut into the same light-blue of the surface. The presence of the Menorah on it renders its symbolism unquestionably religious for Jews and for Paleo-Christians, as the menorah was the onetime great candelabrum of the Jerusalem Temple. It is a common motif in Jewish paintings, as in the Jewish catacombs at Rome and on the wall of the Dura Europos synagogue (Henig 1983, 110), and in reliefs, mosaics and gems, be it an isolated motif (Henig and MacGregor 2004, no. 14.26; Michel 2001, no. 473) or associated with other elements (Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, no. 2055; Michel 2001, no. 472; Spier 2007, nos. 940 and 942-943 and the Hachlili parallels above). However, all the other elements had their own symbolism as well: the shofar was played in the ceremonies of the Temple, especially on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur; Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 225 the ethrog was a symbol of fertility (since the lemon tree bears fruits all year long), and the lulav was a symbol of victory. Besides, the palm tree was considered ‘the tree of the life’ and was a symbol of Judea, which explains its depiction on gems (Sena Chiesa 1966, no. 1414; Zienkiewicz 1986, no. 25), coins of the Flavian Era (with the inscriptions Judaea Devicta and Judaea Capta) and on Late Roman and Byzantine mosaics and artefacts. It is interesting to note that because of the absence of a ground line (usually missing from Roman glyptic rendering of object and vegetal symbols) the symbols of this intaglio seem to float in space (Cravinho and AmoraiStark 2006, 525). Publ.: Cravinho 2004, 232-242; Cravinho and Amorai-Stark 2006, 521-533; Cravinho 2009, 18 (simply cited); Cravinho 2010, 20-21, Pl. I-4; Cravinho 2015, 120-121, no. 14; Cravinho 2017, 30, Fig. 23. Date: Late 2nd-3rd century AD. VII – GREEK INSCRIPTION 71. Red carnelian, oval, slightly convex on both faces, with inwardbevelled edges (almost Henig’s Type A5). Dimensions: c. 8.2 x 11 x c. 3.2mm. Chipped on the right and lower edges. From Alentejo (found in a grave or with coins). Inv. no. Au 601. Description: Inscription in Greek letters HCYX to be read as on impression. Above a six-pointed star and below a lunar crescent. Parallels: Marshall 1907, no. 503 (= Richter 1971, no. 120 – HCYXOC, under Hermes’ bust); Berry 1969, no. 256 (cameo with the inscription ΚΕΒΟΗθΙΥΣΗΙΙΟ - Lord help Hesychios). Discussion: The inscription must correspond to the name of the owner of the ring in which the intaglio was set. The name is an abbreviated form of HCYXOC – the name of a hero of Ancient Greece, whose descendants were members of an Athenian family of Eupatrids (the ΗCΥΧΙ∆ΑΙ), who had a very important religious role since he held the hereditary priesthood of the cult of the Eumenides. For Theophrastos, however, HCYXOC was the god who led the souls to Hades and whose sanctuary was situated near Polémon, outside of the nine gates of Pelasgikon. Other versions of the inscription, in Latin letters, are names and cognomes: HESYCHUS (CIL II no. 5973, from Oliva-Spain; CIL VI nos. 4441, 5413, 6619-66120, 11374, 14241, 14243, 15113, 26320, 29054 – from Roma; CIL VIII no. 13724 – from Cartago; CIL X no. 1403 – from Ercolano; no. 4091 – from Capua; CIL XII no. 3241 – from Nîmes; CIL XIV no. 3393 – from Palestrina); HESYCUS (CIL VI 226 G. Cravinho no. 200, from Rome); ESYCHUS (CIL V no. 2224, from Venetia; CIL VI no. 322 – one of the many inscriptions from Rome; CIL IX no. 6128, from Brindisi; CIL X no. 1403, from Ercolano; CIL XIV no. 2304 – from Castel Gandolfo) and ISYCHUS, bishop of Vienne (McBrine 2008, 80). Another hypothesis is that the inscription is an abbreviation of HCYXIOC (Hesychios), the name of several bishops and martyrs of Egypt and Thessalonica, whose Latin versions are: ESICHIUS, ESYCHIUS/HESYCHIUS (CIL VI nos. 23024 and 38198, from Rome; CIL XIV no. 4408, from Ostia Antica); ESUCHIUS (Forcellini 1883, vol. 9, 384; Hoffmann 1907, 37, no. 2134; CIL no. 2134). One of those martyrs was Hesychios of Alexandria, a Jewish student of the Neo-Platonic and mathematician Υπατια of Alexandria, who was tortured and killed inside a church by fanatical Christians in 415 AD. Publ.: Vasconcelos 1910, 238; Graça and Machado 1970, 385-386, no. 18; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 17, no. 166. Date: 2nd century AD. VIII – MAGICAL GEM 72. Mottled green and red jasper (heliotrope), oval, convex on both faces, with inward-bevelled edges (Henig’s Type A5). Dimensions: upper face: 31.5 x 44.5mm, lower face: 27.5 x 42mm; Th: c. 8mm. Chipped on the right edge. Find place unknown. Inv. no. E 540. Description: Face A: Horus-Harpokrates in the solar boat, sitting on a lotus-flower and with his index finger to his lips (his characteristic gesture). On the right side of the scene, there is a man rowing the boat, and the Genious Anguiped. Above them, in Greek letters, the inscription ΑΒΡΑCΑΖ. On the left side, is Akephalos (the Headless) and Anubis, both under the inscription ΙΑΩ. Above the scene, the names of the archangels ΟΥΡΙΗΛ ΡΑ√ΑΗΛ Φ ΡΑΧΟΙΗΛ CΑΒΡΙΗΛ CΑΒΡΙΗΛ ΜΙΧΑΗΛ CΑΡΙΗΛ and below, on the right of the two boat’s oars, the names of ΡΑΦΑΗΛ CΑΡΙΗΛ ΚΟΥCΤΙΗΛ and on the left, ΙΑΗΛ. Parallels (motif): Bonner 1950, nos. 197A, 199A, 200, 202 and 210; Delatte and Derchain 1964, no. 159; Zazoff 1965, no. 51 (= AGDS IV, pl. 103, no. 146); AGDS IV, pl. 103, no. 147; Zwierlein-Diehl 1991, nos. 2184a2185; Michel 2001, nos. 123-124. Parallels (angels): Bonner 1950, nos. 40, 73, 98R, 153, 168R, 171-172, 179, 227A-R, 298, 309-311, 313, 336, 338A-R, 339, 342 and 361; Delatte and Derchain 1964, nos. 14, 24, 26-27, 116, 142, 211, 350, 362, 365, 457, Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 227 481, 489 and 493; Henig 1975, no. 251B; Michel 2001, nos. 424R, 445, 452 and 521-522. Face B: Magic formula: ΙΑΡΒΑΙΑΘΑΓΡΛΜΝΗΗΒΩΞΝΗΜΕ(or Ξ?)Ω ΦΗCΟΟΟΑΝΟΗΡΕC∆ΝΚΑΝΘΑΡΑ ΑΚΡCΝΡΟΒΟΡΕΙΚΟΙΗCY−−−−ΚΟΝΥΕΥΚΕΝΤΕΥ ΚΕΝΤΕΥΚΗΜ∆ΕΥΓΕΝΥCCΕΥΛΥΝΥΝΖ ΑΥΚΥΝΖΥΛΥΚΥΝΖΥΝΤΑΚΟΡΥΖΗ ΘΗΝΩΡΒΑΡΡΑΚΑΜΠΥΚΝΗ Discussion: The intaglio probably came from Alexandria (where the magical consecration of amulets was made) and has as its central figure Harpokrates (a Hellenized form of Harpakhrat, Horus child, the Egyptian God Nefertem). His depictions are quite common on magical gems, mainly within a papyrus boat (a solar barge) or sitting on a lotus-flower, as depicted on Greek (Smith 1888, no. 159) and Greco-Phoenician scarabs (Spier 1992, no. 100), and Hellenistic (Boardman and Scarisbrick 1977, no. 17) and RomanEgyptian rings (Henig 1994, no. 587). From its roots emerge two ears of wheat (which had an important role in the Eleusinian Mysteries and were regarded by the Gnostics as the symbol of the promised Savior). The Akephalos by his side, frequent on magical gems and on magical papyri (being one of their most peculiar deities), has its origin in the most ancient religion of the Egyptians, although it was in Hellenistic Egypt that he became truly popular, either identified with Osiris (PGM II.98-117) or with Besas, the Egyptian god of music and revelry and the guardian of parturients (PGM VII.222-49; VIII.64-100). Other headless dieties existed in other civilizations: Molos in Creta, and Thriton, in the Dionysos temple in Tanagra. In the case of our intaglio, since the Akephalos appears in the barge together with the Genious Anguiped and Harpokrates-Horus, it is plausible that the scene is related to the Osiris cycle. Anubis was, from the beginnings of Egyptian Mythology, a funerary god, psychopomp and embalmer. Depicted with a jackal head, it appears as an isolated figure or in more complex motifs (associated with a mummy, a lion or another divinity). The Genious Anguiped was one of the gods of magic (all of them strange hybrid figures), depicted with a cock’s head (but also that of a dog, a bird or a lion), human torso, serpent’s legs and arms and holding in one hand a whip and in the other a shield. His origin is unknown, since he is absent from Pagan cults. Inexplicable as well is the association of the two opposing natures on him – one celestial (the cock) and the other telluric (the serpent). 228 G. Cravinho Also inexplicable is his meaning. Was he a warrior who destroyed giants? Or was he related to the solar cult, as the whip and the cuirass, symbols of Helios, seem to demonstrate? As to the inscriptions ΑΒΡΑΧΑΖ and ΑΒΡΑCΑΣ or ΑΡΠΑΧΑΣ they refer to the name of a mythical gnostic demon and constitute a formula of magical invocation. Its association to the Genious Anguiped is one of the most frequent on gnostic gems since the late 2nd century AD. The inscription ΙΑΩ refers to Yahweh, the god of the Jews. Publ.: Araújo 1993, 390, no. 301; Veiga and Griffin 2007, 141-149. Date: 2nd-3rd century AD. IX. CAMEO Female Portrait 73. Orange carnelian, circular, flat lower face. Dimensions: 11.2 x 10.7 x 4.1mm. In good condition. Said to come from a necropolis in Ammaia. Inv. no. Au 1202. Description: Feminine bust, with her head in three-quarter front view to the right. Parallels: Berry 1969, no. 234 (amethyst); Sternberg 1980, no. 788 – carnelian, Augustan date (= Henig 1990, no. 65). Publ.: Cravinho 2010, 24, no. 9; Cravinho 2015, 126-127, no. 17. Date: Late 1st century AD. X. DAMAGED GEM 74. Milky chalcedony, oval, convex upper face, set in a Roman gold ring (Henig’s Ring Type II/Guiraud’s Ring Type 2c). Gem’s dimensions: 7 x 9.5mm. Ring’s dimensions: diameter: 21mm; inner diameter: 15mm; H: 18.5mm. Wt: 6.6g. Upper face destroyed. From Igrejinha (Arraiolos). Inv. no. Au 148. Description: Impossible to describe because of the total destruction of the upper face. Publ.: Vasconcelos 1916, 169; Graça and Machado 1970, 387, no. 23; Parreira and Vaz Pinto 1980, 18, no. 197. Date: 1st century AD (according to the ring’s type). Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 229 Abbreviations: AGDS II = Zwierlein-Diehl E. 1969. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, vol. 2: Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenabteilung Berlin. München. AGDS III Kassel = Scherf V., Gercke P. and Zazoff P. 1970. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, vol. 3: Herzog Anton-Urlich Museum Braunschweig, Sammlung in Arch. Inst. Der Universitat Göttingen, Staatliche Kunstsammlugen Kassel. Wiesbaden. AGDS IV = Schlüter M., Platz-Horster G. Zazoff P. 1975. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlugen, vol. 4: Hannover, Kestner-Museum und Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe. Wiesbaden. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum References Aguilera Aragón I. 1979. Sobre un entalle romano de Bursau. Cuadernos de Estudios Borjanos 4, 89-95. Alarcão J. 1987. Portugal Romano (Historia Mundi 33), 4th edition. Lisboa. Alessio A. 1985. Anelli, Gli Ori di Taranto in età Ellenistica, 2nd edition. Milano. Alfaro Giner C. 1996. Entalles y camafeos de la Universitat de València. (Estudis Numismàtics Valencians 7). Valencia. Almeida F. 1964. Ruínas de Miróbriga dos célticos: Santiago do Cacém. Almeida F. and Veiga Ferreira O. 1965. Antiguidades da Egitânia. Alguns achados dignos de nota. Arqueologia e História, 8ª série, 11, 95–101. Lisboa. Amorai-Stark S. 1993. Engraved Gems and Seals from Two Collections in Jerusalem. The Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Museum Gem Collection and The Pontifical Biblical Institute Museum Gem Collection. Jerusalem. Amorai-Stark S. 1999. Gems, cameos and seals. In R. Gersht (ed.), The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima, 12–13 and 87–191. Tel-Aviv. Angeles Gutierez M. 2008. La Colección de Joyería Cluniense. Burgos. Araújo L. M. 1993. Antiguidades Egípcias (Catálogo), vol. 1. Lisboa. Bairrão Oleiro J. M. 1992. Conimbriga: Casa dos repuxos. (Corpus dos Mosaicos Romanos de Portugal 1). Lisboa. 230 G. Cravinho Baratte F. and Painter K. 1989. Trésors d’orfevrerie gallo–romains. Paris. Beazley J. D. 1920. The Lewes House Collection of Ancient Gems. Oxford. Bélard da Fonseca F. 1945. Mais dois exemplares. In C. M. de Beja (ed.), Anéis de ouro, romanos achados no Baixo Alentejo. Arquivo de Beja (1ª Série), 2, 39–42. Berry B. Y. 1969. Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry. (Indiana University Art Museum Publication 1). Betz H. D. 1992. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, 2nd edition. Chicago–London. Boardman J. 1968. Engraved Gems. The Ionides Collection. London. Boardman J. 2001. Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. London. Boardman J. and Scarisbrick D. 1977. The Ralph Harari Collection of Finger Rings. London. Boardman J. and Vollenweider M.-L. 1978. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings in the Ashmolean Museum, vol. 1: Greek and Etruscan. Oxford. Bonner C. 1950. Studies in Magical Amulets, chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. (Humanistic Series 49). Ann Arbor. Breglia L. 1941. Catalogo delle oreficerie del Museo nazionale di Napoli. Roma. Capolutti G., Giovannini A. and Buora M. 1996. Catalogo. In Römische Gemmen aus Aquileia. Gemme Romane da Aquileia, 51–100, exhib. cat. Udine–Trieste. Cardozo M. 1962. Pedras de anéis romanos encontradas em Portugal. Revista de Guimarães 72/1–2, 155–160. Carvalhaes J. 1911. Acquisições do Museu Etnologico Português. O Archeologo Português 16, 103–125. Casal Garcia R. 1980. Pedras de anelo do Noroeste peninsular. Gallaecia 6, 101–110. Casal Garcia R. 1991. Colección de glíptica del Museo Arqueológico Nacional (serie de entalles romanos), vols 1–2. Madrid. Centeno R. and Valladares Souto J. 1993–1997. Depósito de moedas da Judeia achado em Mértola. Nvmmvs, 2nd series, 16/20, 197–204, [on-line] http://hdl.handle.net/10216/64831. Chaves F. and Casal Garcia R. 1995. Problemática de la glíptica en España: Estado de la cuestión. PACT 23, vol. IV.9, 313–331. Chaves L. 1913. Aquisições do Museu Etnológico Português. O Archeologo Português 18, 131–168. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 231 Chaves L. 1914. Aquisições do Museu Etnológico Português em 1913. O Archeologo Português 19, 367–371. Chelli M. 2008. Manuale dei simboli nell’arte. L’era paleocristiana e bizantina. Roma. Cravinho G. 2001. Peças glípticas de Conimbriga. Conimbriga 40, 141– 198. Cravinho G. 2004. O mais antigo vestígio Judaico da Península Ibérica. Caderno de Estudos Sefarditas 4, 232–242. Cravinho G. 2009. A importância da Glíptica. Revista de Artes Decorativas 3, 11–30. Cravinho G. 2010. Some engraved gems from Ammaia. PALLAS 83, 13– 33. Cravinho G. 2014. Glíptica Romana em Portugal. Tese de Doutoramento, vols 1–2. Santiago de Compostela, [on-line] http://hdl.handle. net/10347/11726. Cravinho G. 2015. Espólio funerário de Ammaia. A joalharia. In J. C. Quaresma (ed.), Ad Aeternitatem. Os espólios funerários de Ammaia a partir da colecção Maçãs do Museu Nacional e Arqueologia, 93–141. Évora. Cravinho G. 2017. Gravação, Temática e Funções das Gemas Romanas. Al-Madan 2 série, 21, 25–30. Cravinho G. 2018. A Iconografia de Minerva através da Glíptica. In S. P. Yebenes and J. T. García (eds.), Glyptós – Gemas y camafeus Greco-romanos: Arte, mitologias, creencias, 41–82. Madrid-Salamanca (in press). Cravinho G. and Amorai-Stark S. 2006. A Jewish intaglio from Roman Ammaia, Lusitania. Liber Annuus 56, 521–546, [on-line] https://doi. org/10.1484/J.LA.2.303657 Cravinho G. and Amorai-Stark S. 2011. The Christian gems from Portugal in context. In Ch. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), ‘Gems of Heaven’. Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity, c. AD 200– 600, 114–126. London. D’Ambrosio A. and De Carolis E. 1997. I monili dell’area Vesuviana. Roma. Delatte A. and Derchain Ph. 1964. Les intailles magiques gréco– égyptiennes. Paris. Dimitrova-Milčeva A. 1980. Antike Gemmen und Kameen aus Archäologischen Nationalmuseum in Sofia. Sofia. Dimitrova-Milčeva A. 1987. Gemme e cammei del Museo Storico Comunale di Svistov. Ratiariensia 3–4, 193–208. 232 G. Cravinho Elliot J. W. and Henig M. 1982. Engraved gemstones from the Roman frontier post at Newstead, Roxburghshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 112, 295–299. Fabregat R. G. 2011/2012. Dactyliothecae Cataloniae: La collecció glíptica del Museu Episcopal de Vic. Quaderns del MEV 5, 191–241. Ferreira de Almeida C. A. 1974. Escavações no Monte Mozinho I. Penafiel. Ferreira M. and Coutinho M. 1979. Medalhas do Renascimento. Colecção Calouste Gulbenkian. Lisboa. Forcellini E. 1883. Totius Latinitatis Onomasticon. In V. De-Vit (ed.), Typis Aldinianis, vol. 9, 384. Fossing P. M. A. 1929. The Thorvaldsen Museum: Catalogue of the Antique Engraved Gems and Cameos. Copenhagen. Furtwängler A. 1896. Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin. Furtwängler A. 1900. Die antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum. Lipsk, Berlin. Gallottini A. 2012. La glittica Santarelli ai Musei Capitolini. Intagli, cammei e sigilli. Roma. Gauthier M. 1977. Circonscription d’Aquitaine. Gallia 35/2, 449–472. Gesztelyi T. 1987. A Déri Múzeum gemmagyűjteménye. In A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve. Annales Musei Debreceniensis de Friderico Déri nominati 1986. Debrecen. Gesztelyi T. 2000. Antike Gemmen im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. (Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Seria Archaeologica 3). Budapest. Gesztelyi T. 2001. Gemstones and Finger Rings from Brigetio. (Collections of the Kuny Domokos Museum of Tata 6). Tata. Gesztelyi T. 2013. Gem finds from Intercisa. ActaArchHung 64/1, 89–111, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1556/AArch.64.2013.1.4. Gonzenbach V. 1952. Römische Gemmen aus Vindonissa. ZSchwArch 13/2, 65–82, [on-line] http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-163796. Graça M. A., Machado S. 1970. Uma Colecção de Pedras Gravadas. Elementos para um Catálogo Geral. In Actas do II Congresso Nacional de Arqueologia, vol. 2, 371–390. Coimbra. Gramatopol M. 1974. Les pierres gravées du Cabinet Numismatique de l’Académie Roumaine. (Collection Latomus 138). Bruxelles. Guiraud H. 1988. Intailles et camées de l’époque romaine en Gaule (Territoire Français), 48e supplément à Gallia, vol. 1. Paris. Guiraud H. 1989. Bagues et anneaux à l’époque romaine en Gaule. Gallia 46, 172–211, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.3406/galia.1989.2895. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 233 Guiraud H. 1995. Intailles de Lons-le-Saunier. Jura. Gallia 52, 359–406, on-line] https://doi.org/10.3406/galia.1995.3158. Guiraud H. 1996. Intailles et camées romains. Paris. Guiraud H. 1998. Intailles du Musée des Antiquités Nationales. Antiquitées Nationales 30, 131–142. Guiraud H. 2008. Intailles et camées de l’époque romaine en Gaule (territoire français), vol. 2. Paris. Hachlili R. 2001. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 68). Brill. Hamat A.-C. 2014. Bijuterii cu inscripţie din provincia romană Dacia. I. Pietre gravate. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timiensis (2012) 14. Hamburger A. 1968. Gems from Caesarea Maritima. (‘Atiqot. English Series 8). Jerusalem. Hautecoeur M.-L. Gauckler M. P., Merlin M. A., Poinssot M. L. and Drappier M. L. 1910. Catalogue des musées et collections archéolo-giques de l’Algérie et de la Tunisie. Catalogue du musée Alaoui. Catalogue des Musées et Collections Archéologiques de l’Algérie et de la Tunisie: Musée Alaoui (Supplement). Paris. Heleno M. 1953. O tesouro da Borralheira (Teixoso). O Arqueólogo Português 2, 2.ª Série , 213–235. Henig M. 1974. A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites. (BAR BS 8, 2). Oxford. Henig M. 1975. The Lewis Collection of Engraved Gemstones in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. (BAR Supplementary Series 1). Oxford. Henig M. 1982. Seasonal feasts in Roman Britain. OJA 1/2, 213–223, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1982.tb00308.x. Henig M. 1983. A Handbook of Roman Art: A Comprehensive Survey of All the Arts of the Roman World. London. Henig M. 1990. The Content Family Collection of Ancient Cameos. Oxford, Houlton. Henig M. 1991. Antique gems in Roman Britain. Jewellery Studies 5: Classical Gold Jewellery and the Classical Tradition. Papers in Honour of R. A. Higgins , 49–54. Henig M. 1994. Classical Gems. Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Cameos in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Cambridge. Henig M. 1995. An Onyx Cameo from Silchester. Britannia 26, 306–308, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.2307/526882. 234 G. Cravinho Henig M. 1999. One hundred and fifty years of Wroxeter gems. In M. Henig and D. Plantzos (eds.), Classicism to Neo-Classicism: Essays Dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann. (BAR IS 793), 49–66. Oxford. Henig M. 2008. Intaglios from Roman London. In J. Clark (ed.), Londinium and Beyond. Essays on Roman London and its Hinterland for Harvey Sheldon (CBA Research Report 156), 226–238. York. Henig M. 2017. Roman gems in old collections and in modern archaeology. In B. van den Bercken and V. Baan (eds.), Engraved gems. From Antiquity to the Present. (PALMA 14), 15–29. Leiden. Henig M. and Whiting M. 1987. Engraved Gems from Gadara in Jordan: The Sa’d Collection of Intaglios and Cameos. (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 6). Oxford. Henig M. and MacGregor A. 2004. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger-Rings in the Ashmolean Museum. II Roman. (Studies in Gems and Jewellery. BAR IS 1332). Oxford. Herfort-Koch M. 1988. Schmuck und Gemmen im Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte des Stadt Dortmund. Boreas 11, 265–300. Hipólito M. C. 1996. Moedas Gregas Antigas. Ouro. Lisboa. Hoffmann E. 1907. De titulis Africae Latinis quaestiones phoneticae. Dissertatio inauguralis....Lipsk. Imhoof F. and Keller O. 1889. Tier-und Pflanzenbilder auf Münzen und Gemmen des klassischen Altertums. Hildesheim. Iñiguez D. A. 1989. Catálogo de las alhajas del Delfin. Madrid. Johns C. 1997. The Snettisham Roman Jeweller’s Hoard. London. King C. W. 1866. The Handbook of Engraved Gems. London. King C. W. 1872. Antique Gems and Rings. vols 1–2. London. Konuk K. and Arslan M. 2000. Ancient Gems and Finger Rings from Asia Minor. The Yüksel Eri̇ mtan Collection. Ankara. Krug A. 1975. Römische Gemmen und Fingerringe im Museum für Vorund Frühgeschichte Frankfurt a. M. Germania 53/12, 113–125. Krug A. 1978. Römische Fundgemmen. Germania 56/2, 476–503. Krug A. 1980. Antike Gemmen im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln. BerRGK 61, 152–260. Krug A. 1995. Römische Gemmen im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier. BerRGK 76, 159–218. Lafli E. 2012. A Preliminary report on the Intaglio and Cameo at the Museums of Izmir. Arkeoloji ve Sanat. Journal of Archaeology & Art. Europa Nostra 2012 (May-August), 133–154. Lippold G. 1922. Gemmen und Kameen des Altertums und der Neuzeit. Stuttgart. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 235 Lopez de la Orden M. D. 1990. La glíptica de la antiguedad en Andalucia. Cadiz. Maaskant-Kleibrink M. 1978. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague. The Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Collections. The Hague, Wiesbaden. Maioli M. G. 1971. Gemme della Collezione Rasponi nel Museo Nazionale di Ravenna. Divinità - Scene Mitologiche. Felix Ravenna 102/2, 3–59. Mandel-Elzinga U. 1985. Eine Gemmensammlung aus Alexandria im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn. BJb 185, 243–298. Mandrioli Bizarri A. R. 1987. La collezione di gemme del Museo Civico Archaeologico di Bologna. Bologna. Marshall F. H. 1907. Catalogue of the Finger Rings Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the Departments of Antiquities. London. McBrine P. C. 2008. The English inheritance of biblical verse, 80. PhD Thesis. University of Toronto. McManus B. F. 2006. Index of Images, Coins from the Hunterian Museum. Glasgow. Retrieved from http://www.vroma.org/cgi-bin/mfs/var/www/ html/images?link=/mcmanus_images/indexcoins_hunterian. html&file=/var/www/html/images/mcmanus_images/indexcoins_ hunterian.html&line=40 (status as of 6th March, 2018). Mattingly H. 1927. Roman Coins from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. (Handbooks of Archaeology). London. Merrillees P. H. 2001. Ancient Near Eastern Glyptic in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. (SIMA 129). Jonsered. Michel S. 2001. Die magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum. London. Middleton J. H. 1891. The Engraved Gems of Classical Times with a Catalogue of the Gems in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge. Middleton S. H. 1991. Engraved Gems from Dalmatia. From the Collections of Sir John Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Arthur Evans in Harrow School, at Oxford and Elswhere. (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 31). Oxford. Middleton S. H. 1998. Seals, Finger Rings, Engraved Gems and Amulets in the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter. Somerset. Middleton S. H. 2001. Classical Engraved Gems from Turkey and Elsewhere: The Wright Collection. (BAR IS 957). Oxford. Neverov O. 1976. Antique Intaglios in the Hermitage Collection. Leningrad. Neverov O. 1985. Antike Kameen. Leipzig. Nolen J. S. 1994. Cerâmicas e Vidros de Torre de Aires – Balsa. Lisboa. Ogden J. 2007. Etched carnelian intaglios. Gems & Jewellery 16. 236 G. Cravinho Osório D. 2014. Agosto. Cristal de Quartzo. In 12 Meses 12 Peças. Retrieved from http://www.ammaia.pt/pagina,7,157.aspx (status as of 5th March, 2018). Pannuti U. 1975. Pinarius Cerialis gemmarius Pompeianus. BdA 60 (III– IV), 178–190. Pannuti U. 1983. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Catalogo della Collezione Glittica, vol. 1. Roma. Pannuti U. 1994. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. La Collezione Glittica, vol. 2. Roma. Panofka T. S. 1852. Gemmen mit Inschriften in den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Haag, Kopenhagen, London, Paris, Petersburg und Wien. Berlin. Parreira R. and Vaz Pinto C. 1980. Tesouros da Arqueologia Portuguesa. Lisboa. Pereira S. 2005. A freguesia da Aramenha sob o domínio romano. Ibn Maruán. Revista Cultural do Concelho de Marvão 13, 35–61. Pereira S. 2009. A cidade romana de Ammaia: Escavações arqueológicas 2000–2006. Lisboa. Platz-Horster G. 1984. Die antiken Gemmen im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn. Köln, Bonn. Ponte S. 1995. Colecção Bustorff Silva – Núcleo de época romana: Objectos de Adorno. In Museu Nacional de Arqueologia and Instituto de Museus (eds.), Um gosto privado, um olhar público: Doações, 124–136. Lisboa. Rambach H. 2011. Reflections on gems depicting the context of Athena and Poseidon. In Ch. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Gems of Heaven. Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity, c. AD 200– 600. (British Museum Research Publication 177), 263–274. London. Reinach S. 1895. Pierres gravées des collections Marlborough et d’Orléans, des recueils d’Eckhel, Gori, Lévesque de Gravelle, Mariette, Millin, Stosch. Paris. Richter G. M. A. 1956. Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan and Roman. Roma. Richter G. M. A. 1971. The Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, vol. 2: Engraved Gems of the Romans. A Supplement to the History of Roman Art. London. Richter G. M. A. 2004. Roman Portraits. New York. Rigaud de Sousa J. J. 1973. Anéis e entalhes de Zona Portuguesa do Convento Bracaraugustano. Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 85, 187– 192. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 237 Righetti R. 1955. Gemme e Cammei delle Collezioni Comunali. Roma. Ruseva-Slokoska L. 1991. Roman Jewellery. A Collection of the National Archaeological Museum, Sofia. Sofia. Scatozza Höricht L. A. 1989. I monili di Ercolano. Roma. Sena Chiesa G. 1966. Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia. Aquileia. Sena Chiesa G. 1978. Gemme di Luni. (Archaelogica 4). Roma. Sena Chiesa G., Magni A. and Tassinari G. 2009. Gemme dei Civici Musei d’arte di Verona. (Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto 45). Roma. Shapira R. 2014. ‘Naked Runner’ sheds light on a little-known art of ancient Rome. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/. premium-1.608561 (status as of 6th March, 2018). Smith A. 1888. A Catalogue of Engraved Gems in the British Museum. London. Soeiro T. 1984. Monte Mozinho: Apontamentos sobre a ocupação entre Sousa e Tâmega em época romana. Penafiel: Boletim Municipal de Cultura 1, 3rd series, 5–232. Spier J. 1992. Ancient Gems and Finger Rings: Catalogue of the Collections of the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu, California. Spier J. 2007. Late Antique and Early Christian Gems. Wiesbaden. Sternberg F. 1980. Antike Münzen – Gemmen. Zürich. Sternberg F. 1988. Antike Münzen. Griechen–Römer–Byzantiner. Gemmen, Kameen und Schmuck der Antike und der Neuzeit. Italienische Renaissancemedaillen. Zürich. Sutherland C. H. V. 1974. Monnaies Romaines. Fribourg. Taelman D., Deprez S., Vermeulen F. and De Dapper M. 2008. Lapicidinae Ammmaiensis: een geoarcheologische case-study voor de Civitas Ammaiensis (noordelijke Alentejo, Portugal). Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 39, 28–36. Taelman D., Deprez S., Vermeulen F. and De Dapper M. 2009. Granite and rock crystal quarrying in the Civitas Ammaiensis (North-eastern Alentejo, Portugal): A geoarchaeological case study. BABesch 84, 171– 186, [on-line] https://doi.org/ 10.2143/BAB.84.0.2041643. Taelman D., Corsi C., De Dapper M., Deprez S., Verdonck L. and Vermeulen F. 2010. Geoarchaeological research in the Roman town of Ammaia (Alentejo, Portugal). Bollettino di Archeologia On Line 1, 58– 70. Tamma G. 1991. Le gemme del Museo archeologico di Bari. Bari. Tassie J. 1791. A Descritive Catalogue of a General Collection of Ancient and Modern Engraved Gems, Cameos as Well as Intaglios, Taken from 238 G. Cravinho the Most Celebrated Cabinets in Europe; and Cast in Coloured Pastes, White Enamel, and Sulphur, vols 1–2. London. Ubaldelli M.-L. 2001. Dactyliotheca Capponiana. Collezionismo romano di intagli e cammei nella prima metà del XVIII secolo. (Bolletinno di Numismatica. Monografia 8.1). Roma. Vasconcelos J. L. 1898. Objectos romanos do Alemtejo (carta de Joaquim Henriques ao redactor d’ O Archeologo Português). O Archeologo Português 4, 288–289. Vasconcelos J. L. 1905. Acquisições do Museu Etnologico Português. O Archeologo Português 10, 44–48. Vasconcelos J. L. 1906. Acquisições do Museu Ethnologico Português. O Archeologo Português 11, 89–92. Vasconcelos J. L. 1907. Sepultura Romana. O Archeologo Português 12, 367. Vasconcelos J. L. 1908a. Observações a “O Archeologo Português”. O Archeologo Português 13, 356. Vasconcelos J. L. 1908b. Nota ao “Archeologo”, XII, 367. O Archeologo Português 13, 355–356. Vasconcelos J. L. 1910. Acquisições do Museu Etnologico Português. O Archeologo Português 15, 233–247. Vasconcelos J. L. 1913a. Sindicância ao Museu Etnológico Português. O Archeologo Português 18, 178–190. Vasconcelos J. L. 1913b. Religiões da Lusitânia, vol. 3. Lisboa. Vasconcelos J. L. 1914. Excursão arqueológica à Extremadura Transtagana – III. S. Tiago do Cacém. O Archeologo Português 19, 314–318. Vasconcelos J. L. 1916. Entre Tejo e Odiana. O Archeologo Português 21, 152–195. Veiga P. and Griffin K. 2007. Preliminary study of an unusual GraecoRoman magical gem (MNA E540) in the National Museum of Archaeology in Lisbon, Portugal. In K. Griffin (ed.), Current Research in Egyptology: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Symposium, 141– 149. Swansea (Wales). Vollenweider M.-L. 1972-74. Die Porträtgemmen der römischen Republik, vols 1–2. Mainz am Rhein. Vollenweider M.-L. 1984. Deliciae Leonis: Antike geschnittene Steine und Ringe aus einer Privatsammlung. Mainz am Rhein. Vollenweider M.-L. 1995. Camées et intailles, vol. 1: Les portraits grecs du Cabinet des médailles. Paris. Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... 239 Vollenweider M.-L. 2003. Camées et Intailles, vol. 2: Les portraits romains du Cabinet des médailles. Paris. Walker S. and Higgs P. 2001. Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth. Princeton. Wagner C. and Boardman J. 2003. A Collection of Classical and Eastern Intaglios, Rings and Cameos. (BAR IS 1136, Studies in Gems and Jewellery 1). Oxford. Walters H. B. 1926. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum. London. Weiß C. 2007. Die antiken Gemmen der Sammlung Heinrich Dressel in der Antikensammlung Berlin. Würzburg. Weiß C. 2009. Intagli preziosi. In E. Dozio, C.-M. Fallani and S. Soldini (eds.), Gli atleti di Zeus. Lo sport nell’antichità. [mostra organizzata dal Museo d’Arte Mendrisio con il sostegno del Municipio di Mendrisio, 12 settembre 2009 - 10 gennaio 2010], 221–235. Mendrisio. Zazoff P. 1965. Gemmen in Kassel. AA 1, 1–115. Zazoff P. 1983. Die Antiken Gemmen. München. Zienkiewicz D. 1986. The engraved gemstones. In D. Zienkiewicz (ed.), The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon. 2. The Finds, 117–145. Cardiff. Zwierlein-Diehl E. 1969. Die Geschichte der Berliner Gemmensammlung. AA 4, 524–531. Zwierlein-Diehl E. 1979. Die Antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien, vol. 2. München. Zwierlein-Diehl E. 1986. Glaspasten im Martin-von-Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg, vol. 1. München. Zwierlein-Diehl E. 1991. Die Antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien, vol. 3. München. Graça Cravinho c/o Artis - Instituto de História da Arte, Investigadora Integrada Universidade de Lisboa [email protected] PLATE 1 G. Cravinho Pl. 1 – Gems nos. 1–15: nos. 1–5 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon, no. 6 – photo by the author, nos. 7–15 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... PLATE 2 Pl. 2 – Gems nos. 16–28 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon PLATE 3 G. Cravinho Pl. 3 – Gems nos. 29–40 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... PLATE 4 Pl. 4 – Gems nos. 41–53 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon PLATE 5 G. Cravinho Pl. 5 – Gems nos. 54–65: nos. 54–56 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon, no. 57 – photo by the author, nos. 58–65 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon Roman engraved gems in The National Archaelogical Museum... PLATE 6 Pl. 6 – Gems nos. 66–74 – photos by The National Archeological Museum in Lisbon S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Jean-Louis Podvin Boulogne-sur-Mer (France) LE SUCCÈS D’HARPOCRATE À NEA PAPHOS Abstract: Even though we find only a few traces of the Egyptian god Harpocrates on epigraphic inscriptions, his cult was widespread in Ancient Near East during the Graeco-Roman period. The discovery of figurines (terracotta, glass, bronze, silver, and sometimes gold) and other artefacts depicting the young god (for instance on lamps) is a good sign of his popularity at all stratas of society. In Cyprus, such representations of Harpocrates are scarce (Amathontes, Salamine), except for Nea Paphos. The recent publication of an amulet discovered in Nea Paphos gives the opportunity to discuss its interpretation and to come back on the presence of the young god on the island. Keywords: Harpocrates; Isis; Sarapis; Paphos; Cyprus; magical amulet Différentes études ont d’ores-et-déjà souligné la présence des cultes isiaques à Chypre à l’époque gréco-romaine. Parmi celles-ci, on retiendra notamment celles d’Ino Michaelidou-Nicolaou (1978) et d’Aristodemos Anastasiades (2009) portant sur l’ensemble de l’île, d’Andrzej Daszewski (1985) sur Nea Paphos, et de Richard Veymiers (2005) sur Paphos. Si l’on suit le témoignage de Macrobe (Saturnalia, I, 20, 16-17), certes bien tardif puisqu’il date du Ve siècle après J.-C., et sans aucune précision sur le lieu où l’oracle de Sérapis aurait été réalisé, ces cultes isiaques auraient intrigué et intéressé le souverain chypriote Nicocréonte, dès la fin du IVe siècle avant J.-C. De fait, des documents isiaques apparaissent au IIIe siècle, pour se multiplier à l’époque romaine. Sérapis semble plus honoré que sa compagne DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.10 248 J.-L. Podvin Isis dans les inscriptions, mais Anubis n’est pas oublié au début de l’époque romaine à Arsos1 ; en ce qui concerne les objets (statuettes en terre cuite ou en métal, bijoux, lampes, crétules), les choses sont quelque peu différentes puisque d’autres divinités sont alors figurées, et parmi elles, Harpocrate (Η̣r-p3-hrd, Horus l’enfant), fils d’Isis et Osiris dans la mythologie égyptienne. C’est sur lui que nous voudrions ici revenir. Les témoignages relatifs à Harpocrate Harpocrate est présent sur plusieurs lampes romaines découvertes à Chypre. On le trouve ainsi sur un exemplaire à Salamine, en compagnie de sa mère Isis2. Les deux divinités sont représentées de face. Le dieu enfant, nu et coiffé du pschent, la couronne double des pharaons que certains dieux comme Harpocrate arborent parfois, est naturellement plus petit que sa génitrice (Bailey 1988, 321, Q 2626, pl. 72 ; Podvin 2011, Hdf-Idf.m(1), 82, 253, pl. 55). Sa jambe droite, placée devant la gauche, accentue son déhanchement. Il porte l’index de la main droite à la bouche, dans l’attitude caractéristique des dieux enfants en Égypte ancienne, et tient du côté gauche une corne d’abondance, un instrument qu’il a adopté dans le monde grec (Pl. 1 : 1). Juste au-dessus de cette cornucopia figure le sistre que tient Isis de la dextre, un détail qui revêt son importance, nous le verrons plus loin. À Amathonte, une tête en marbre peut être attribuée à Harpocrate (Flourentzos 2007, 299-306, fig. 13 (A. Pl. 938))3. En dépit de son usure, on remarque que le menton conserve un reste de pierre, qui laisse à penser que l’index droit de l’enfant y était posé pour atteindre les lèvres. P. Flourentzos mentionne également la partie inférieure d’une statuette en terre cuite d’Harpocrate, et l’on ajoutera aussi une amulette en verre du petit dieu. C’est surtout à Nea Paphos que l’on rencontre Harpocrate, sur des empreintes de sceaux découvertes dans la maison de Dionysos. Le dieu debout, coiffé du pschent et tenant la cornucopia, se présente de face sur deux d’entre eux (n° 7-8), seulement en buste sur deux autres (n° 9-10), et placé dans les bras de sa divine mère, Isis lactans, sur deux derniers (n° 5-6 ; Nicolaou 1978, 852, pl. 178). Ces différentes empreintes datent de la basse période hellénistique (mi IIe – Ier siècles av. J.-C.) et témoignent Pour ces différentes inscriptions, on pourra se référer à Bricault 2005, 497-501. En revanche, on ne retiendra par les lampes mentionnées par Oziol 1977, 101-103, n° 237-238, pl. 14, qui ne représentent pas Harpocrate : cf. Podvin 2011, 101-102. 3 Il est toutefois délicat d’en déduire qu’un temple y était dédié à Isis et Harpocrate. 1 2 Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos 249 de l’utilisation de sceaux pour les archives de Nea Paphos, à l’époque lagide ; elles sont cependant conservées dans un contexte plus tardif, en l’occurrence romain. Dans cette même maison de Dionysos, ont été trouvés deux autres objets isiaques d’époque romaine. C’est d’abord une statuette en calcaire fragmentaire de 19cm, sur laquelle Isis lactans nourrit son fils Harpocrate, niché dans ses bras (Tran tam Tinh et Labrecque, 1973 56, pl. XIV ; Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978, 798, n. 64) : dans ce cas, c’est évidemment Isis qui est valorisée. C’est ensuite ce qui avait d’abord été perçu comme une pyxide en os, mais qui doit plutôt être réinterprété comme un manche de couteau en os ou ivoire daté du Ier siècle, et qui se révèle particulièrement intéressant. D’un côté, Harpocrate coiffé du pschent, main droite aux lèvres et corne d’abondance sur le bras gauche, chevauche une oie, tandis qu’un faucon affublé de la même couronne se dresse sur une colonne ; de l’autre, un serpent, Agathodaimon, est lové sur un autel (Musée de Nicosie, O.∆. 755 ; Nicolaou 1965-1966, 40, fig. 22 ; Nicolaou 1967, 111-112, 125, n° 16, pl. XXIV : 1-2 ; Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978, 799, fig. 4 ; Tran tam Tinh et alii 1988, 437, n° 325 ; 261 ; Flourentzos 2007, fig. 14a et b). Le premier éditeur de l’objet avait cru pouvoir déduire de cette seule découverte qu’un sanctuaire dédié à Harpocrate s’y trouvait : l’hypothèse était quelque peu hardie, mais un tel sanctuaire a peut-être bel et bien existé quelque part à Nea Paphos. D’autres représentations d’Harpocrate sont en effet connues à Nea Paphos, et d’abord sur un luminaire polylychne en forme de navire, retrouvé dans la maison d’Orphée (Michaelidès 2009). Sur celui-ci, Sérapis trône dans la partie médiane, alors qu’Harpocrate est figuré debout à la proue du navire : on peut penser qu’Isis assurait la symétrie à la poupe du navire, aujourd’hui trop abîmée pour être identifiable. Ce type de lampe naviforme est rare dans le monde romain, où nous n’en avons répertorié qu’une dizaine de façon sûre, et une trentaine d’autres possibles (Podvin 2011, NAVI (7), 261, pl. 63 ; Podvin 2012). Nous avons eu l’occasion de montrer que ce type de luminaire est généralement associé à un sanctuaire, et qu’il n’était pas porté lors de cérémonies, comme on le croit trop souvent. De même, l’inscription gravée sur la base incite le dieu Héliosérapis à accepter l’offrande qui lui est faite, comme cela apparaît plus clairement sur l’exemplaire de Pouzzoles : Harpocrate apparaît alors comme un compagnon du dieu, et si sanctuaire il y avait, il était plutôt dédié à Sérapis, Isis et Harpocrate étant alors ses synnaoi théoi. 250 J.-L. Podvin Sur la lampe naviforme, Harpocrate est figuré dans son attitude traditionnelle, légèrement déhanché, tenant une corne d’abondance. Son iconographie présente d’évidentes similitudes avec celle de deux autres lampes conservées au musée de Nicosie (Oziol 1977, 217-218, n° 645646 ; Podvin 2011, Hdf.lp (5-6), 69-70, 236 et pl. 34), et qui appartenaient probablement à un même thymiaterion : dans les deux cas, le dieu est représenté en relief sur la base de la lampe. Nu, coiffé d’un pschent, il porte l’index de la main droite à la bouche et tient du côté gauche une corne d’abondance, et un vêtement qui affecte la forme d’un arc4. D’autres amulettes du dieu Harpocrate ont également été trouvées à Chypre. Sur la première, de belle facture, en or, Harpocrate nu, coiffé du pschent, émerge d’un bouquet de lotus, main droite portée aux lèvres et corne d’abondance du côté gauche (Musée de Nicosie, 1938/XI-10/2. Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978, 799, pl. CLXVI : 3 ; Tran tam Tinh et alii 1988, 432, n° 239 et 255). De provenance inconnue, elle est conservée au musée de Nicosie. Sur la seconde, du dépôt de Paphos (inv. M. 79), qui porte quelques traces résiduelles de glaçure bleue et demeure beaucoup plus fruste, le petit dieu se tient debout, le bras droit replié pour suggérer le mouvement de la main vers la bouche, le gauche allongé contre le corps. D’autres amulettes semblables sont connues, caractérisées par leur petite taille (2.5cm), la glaçure, le bras gauche aligné sur le corps en l’absence de corne d’abondance, et un anneau à l’arrière afin de le suspendre au cou. On signalera encore une troisième amulette en verre à Amathonte, restée inédite (AM 3033 ; Nenna 1999, 141, n. 13). Ce type d’amulettes provient majoritairement de Méditerranée orientale, tout particulièrement de Délos (E 168-170 : Nenna 1999, 141, pl. 54, d’après Deonna 1938, 306, pls. 786-787) où trois au moins sont connues, et de Syrie-Palestine (Jérusalem, Yavneh-Yam : Fischer et JacksonTal 2003)5, ce qui laisse à penser qu’un atelier de production utilisant des moules bivalves s’y trouvait, à la basse époque hellénistique et au début de la domination romaine (fin IIe siècle av. J.-C. – début Ier siècle apr. J.-C.). Pour terminer cet ensemble, on signalera une tête en marbre, repêchée à proximité du phare de Kato Paphos et conservée au musée de Paphos (inv. 1253). Fortement érodée par son séjour dans l’eau – on ne peut pas distinguer la trace du doigt porté aux lèvres – elle conserve toutefois On retrouve une pose exactement similaire sur une anse cnidienne : Bailey 1988, 24-25 et 338, Q 2709, pl. 78 ; Podvin 2011, Hdf.adv (1), 236, pl. 34. 5 Pour un autre exemplaire conservé en Israël, Spaer et alii 2001, 169, n° 331. Voir aussi Arveiller-Dulong et Nenna 2011, 38-39, fig. 28, pour un exemplaire conservé au Louvre. 4 Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos 251 un élément informe sur le haut du crâne, qu’Aristodemos Anastasiades (1993) a interprété comme le reste d’un pschent, qui l’a amené à reconnaître Harpocrate. Le dieu porte des boucles longues. Retour sur une curieuse amulette En 2015, la publication d’une « amulette » plate et de forme ovale (3.5cm sur 4.1cm) en siltite gris foncé, découverte quatre ans plus tôt par une mission polonaise à Nea Paphos, au sud de Chypre, a défrayé la chronique au-delà des seuls milieux scientifiques (Śliwa 2013). Sur un côté du talisman qui fait penser au plat d’un scarabée égyptien, est gravé un texte en grec en huit lignes, lisible dans les deux sens : ΙΑΕW / ΒΑΦΡΕΝΕΜ / ΟΥΝΟΘΙΛΑΡΙ / ΚΝΙΦΙΑΕΥΕ / ΑΙΦΙΝΚΙΡΑΛ / ΙΘΟΝΥΟΜΕ / ΝΕΡΦΑΒW / ΕΑΙ. Dans ce court article, nous ne nous attarderons pas sur ce palindrome « Iaeô » qui peut être mis en relation avec Yahweh chez les juifs (Bonner 1950, 140147 ; Mastrocinque 2003, 107). Sur l’autre face, est gravée une scène fortement stylisée (Pl. 1 : 2). Au registre inférieur, un crocodile, parfaitement reconnaissable par la gueule et les deux pattes avant bien visibles, se dirige vers la gauche. Au registre médian, un corps allongé que l’on peut identifier à une momie, pieds à droite, est posé sur une barque : celle-ci est surmontée du côté gauche par un oiseau dirigé vers la droite, et du côté droit par un personnage debout amenant la main droite à la bouche ; à ses pieds se développe un serpent enroulé qui se dresse vers la gauche. Au registre supérieur, un personnage à gauche assis sur un tabouret amène lui aussi la main droite à la bouche, tandis qu’il tient du côté gauche un objet surdimensionné. Un croissant de lune figure dans la partie supérieure gauche, et un soleil dans le haut à droite. Comment interpréter cette scène ? Les archéologues qui ont mis au jour cette amulette ont reconnu les différents protagonistes à l’exception du personnage à l’extrémité droite de la barque qu’ils ont interprété comme un cynocéphale. Rappelons que le terme « cynocéphale », sous lequel les auteurs romains et chrétiens désignaient le dieu d’origine égyptienne Anubis, est normalement une divinité à tête de chacal, or celui qui est figuré sur l’amulette est pourvu d’une tête humaine6. L’autre acception pour le mot « cynocéphale » est On ne peut y voir la même scène que sur une gemme en lapis-lazuli conservée au cabinet des médailles, sur laquelle Harpocrate est assis à gauche sur une fleur de lotus, 6 252 J.-L. Podvin le babouin, généralement associé à l’adoration du soleil, mais, là encore, il n’est pas possible de voir dans le personnage représenté un babouin. Le geste de la main droite, en réalité de l’index de la dextre, porté à la bouche est caractéristique des divinités enfants en Égypte pharaonique ; il est particulièrement bien attesté pour Harpocrate, dont le succès a largement dépassé les frontières de la vallée du Nil. En Égypte pharaonique, Horus l’enfant coiffé d’une mèche latérale était fréquemment assis sur sa mère Isis, en train de lui téter le sein, comme sur les sceaux de Nea Paphos. Quand il est montré adolescent, et notamment sur des figurines d’époque tardive, il porte l’index droit à la bouche, et il peut aussi bien être debout qu’assis, être coiffé du pschent ou de la couronne hemhem que d’une fleur de lotus. À l’époque gréco-romaine, il ajoute à cette attitude le port de la corne d’abondance du côté gauche7. La présence de deux divinités aux extrémités d’une barque funéraire est monnaie courante dans les scènes de la mythologie égyptienne, mais ce sont habituellement deux déesses, Isis et Nephtys, qui y figurent, protectrices de la momie, comme elles l’avaient fait pour la première momie avec leur frère – et même mari pour Isis – Osiris. Elles apparaissent sous la forme de femmes, ou encore sous celle de rapaces, des milans. Dans le cas présent, l’oiseau, identifié par les inventeurs comme Horus, pourrait tout aussi bien être un de ces milans, d’autant qu’il est tourné vers la momie, une autre caractéristique d’Isis et Nephtys : c’est d’ailleurs le seul qui soit tourné vers la droite. Une autre possibilité serait d’y voir un phénix, dont la présence serait tout à fait porteuse de sens dans un contexte de renaissance : plusieurs gemmes des IIIe-IVe s. figurent d’ailleurs cet animal radié8. De l’autre côté de la barque, proche des pieds, c’est un personnage debout, la main droite ramenée vers la bouche et la gauche baissée. entre Thot ibiocéphale et un oiseau, et Anubis cynocéphale et un serpent ailé, dans une barque elle-même placée au-dessus d’un crocodile : Delatte et Derchain 1964, 122, n° 159-160 ; Mastrocinque 2014, 29, n° 38. La relation entre Harpocrate et Chypre est également soulignée sur une gemme associant d’un côté Harpocrate sur une fleur de lotus et de l’autre une inscription du nom magique d’Aphrodite avec le toponyme de Chypre : Delatte et Derchain, n° 141 ; Mastrocinque, 22, n° 10. 7 Sur l’iconographie d’Harpocrate, on peut toujours se référer à Tran tam Tinh et alii 1988. Sur les études consacrées au petit dieu, cf. Malaise 2011. 8 Par exemple, dans la Campbell Bonner Magical Gems Database, CBd-1752, avec le palindrome « Iaeô », ou encore CBd-1240. Nous remercions le collègue relecteur qui nous a mis sur cette piste. Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos 253 Le crocodile figuré en bas de la scène rappelle les stèles d’Horus aux crocodiles, montrant le petit dieu qui piétine les sauriens, en signe de victoire9. Pourtant, dans le cas présent, rien n’indique une quelconque animosité, et il convient sans doute davantage de relier l’animal, soit au fleuve où il vit et sur lequel vogue la barque funéraire10, soit à un signe de fertilité, car les Soucheia, fêtes du dieu crocodile Souchos – forme hellénisée du dieu Sobek – marquaient la fin de l’estivation du reptile à la veille de la crue du Nil (Perpillou-Thomas 1993, 140-142). On sait aussi que le crocodile est parfois mis en relation avec Osiris, dont il sort la momie de l’eau, soulignant ainsi son rôle fécondant dans un processus de renaissance (Malaise 2005, 100101, en donne plusieurs références). Cet animal entretient aussi des liens étroits avec les croyances solaires, ce qui va dans le sens des autres divinités mentionnées précédemment. Pour ce qui est de l’Harpocrate placé au registre supérieur de l’amulette, J. Śliwa considère qu’il porte du bras gauche « a misshaped flagellum, a typical element of Harpocrates’ iconography » : cette proposition nous paraît devoir être exclue. Comme on l’a vu sur les autres documents, dans un contexte gréco-romain, on s’attendrait plutôt à trouver une corne d’abondance11, même si sur les intailles magiques, Harpocrate peut aussi être affublé du fouet nekhekh, mais qui est alors placé derrière lui. L’hypothèse de la massue, plus typique d’Héraklès, ne peut pas être entièrement exclue, les deux dieux étant parfois sollicités dans la protection des enfants. On connaît des statuettes en métal ou en terre cuite sur lesquelles Harpocrate porte une massue (Tran tam Tinh et alii 1988, 247 et 426, n° 146-154), mais aussi des monnaies alexandrines12 et même une gemme (CBd-2062). Pourtant, nous serions davantage enclin à reconnaître un sistre – d’ailleurs assez inhabituel pour Harpocrate, mais très fréquent pour Isis – dont les tiges ne sont que suggérées. On pourrait l’interpréter de la manière suivante, Sur ce type de scènes, Gasse 2004. En ce qui concerne les témoignages d’Harpocrate à Chypre, nous avons laissé de côté la stèle de Kition, d’Horus aux crocodiles, de tradition égyptienne et non isiaque : Gasse 1991, 165-172 ; Yon 1994, 602-603, fig. 4a. 10 On peut rappeler que selon Porphyre, rapporté par Eusèbe, Préparation évangélique, III, 11, 48, le crocodile symbolise l’eau douce sur laquelle vogue la barque solaire. 11 On le trouve avec sa corne d’abondance aussi bien sur les bronzes et les statuettes en terre cuite que sur les monnaies. Pour ces dernières, Bricault 2008, 71-76. 12 Bricault 2008 : on trouvera sur le CD-Rom qui accompagne l’ouvrage plus d’une vingtaine d’émissions alexandrines, datées pour la plupart des années 130-180, sur lesquelles Harpocrate, généralement d’Héracléopolis, tient une massue du bras gauche ou a une massue posée derrière lui. Dans le premier cas, l’identification à une massue et non à une corne d’abondance n’est pas toujours évidente. 9 254 J.-L. Podvin en observant attentivement la lampe de Salamine associant Isis et Harpocrate, mentionnée plus haut. Sur celle-ci, la corne d’abondance d’Harpocrate est surmontée du sistre tenu par sa mère, et un graveur peu au fait des codes iconographiques isiaques aurait fort bien pu mélanger les deux éléments (corne et sistre), ce qui expliquerait la taille excessive de cet attribut. En ce qui concerne le palindrome « Iaeô », il n’est pas exceptionnel. On le retrouve ainsi sur un certain nombre de gemmes, qui associent Sérapis à d’autres divinités du cercle isiaque (Veymiers 2009, 70-80, 289291, II.E 1, 2, 7, 8, pl. 36 et XIV). Or, c’est justement sur ces gemmes que figurent également un crocodile et une momie, mais cette dernière placée sous le reptile. Un lion est également présent dans la partie inférieure, alors que Sérapis domine la scène, ce qui n’est pas le cas sur notre amulette paphienne. Une autre différence notable entre ces gemmes et l’amulette chypriote est l’absence d’ouroboros enfermant la scène, le long duquel est gravée l’inscription. Dans notre cas, l’inscription est au revers de la scène principale, alors que sur ces gemmes, c’est l’enfant solaire qui y est représenté. Cependant, il se pourrait que l’ouroboros ait été mal interprété par l’artiste et que ce soit lui que le graveur ait représenté pour former la partie basse du corps d’Harpocrate : on remarque en effet que l’extrémité de cette queue, au lieu d’être en pointe, se termine par ce qui ressemble à une gueule ouverte, peut-être surmontée par une coiffe, comme si l’on avait confondu Sérapis-Agathodaimon13 ou Isis-Thermuthis avec l’ouroboros, symbole du temps comme le sont également les deux motifs du soleil et de la lune, que l’on retrouve d’ailleurs sur les mêmes gemmes. L’ensemble de ces données confère à la scène gravée sur cette amulette une valeur hautement symbolique, voire probablement magique, destinée à glorifier la survie post mortem, le petit dieu étant à lui seul un symbole d’une jeunesse que l’on serait tenté de qualifier d’éternelle, à côté de la momie renaissante grâce à la protection divine et à la formule magique. Plutôt que d’y voir un objet très tardif des Ve-VIe siècles, en pleine époque chrétienne, on pourrait davantage y voir une amulette d’époque impériale, qui, compte tenu des modifications apportées, est peut-être légèrement plus tardive que celles recensées par Richard Veymiers, mais qui ne doit cependant pas dépasser le IIIe siècle ou le début du IVe. Elle a pu se retrouver dans ce contexte tardif suite à un bouleversement du site ou à une réutilisation postérieure de l’objet. 13 Sérapis-Agathodaimon apparaît sur une bague en or découverte à Nea Paphos : Veymiers 2009, 347 : VI.AA 4, pl. 60. Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos 255 Si l’on connaît de mieux en mieux la popularité d’Harpocrate dans le monde oriental14, il reste à comprendre pourquoi le petit dieu a connu un certain succès à Nea Paphos15, et beaucoup moins, semble-t-il, dans le reste de l’île. Bibliographie Anastasiades A. 1993. An Harpokrates head in the Paphos District Museum. RDAC, 275–278, pl. LXVII. Anastasiades A. 2009. Fusion and diffusion. Isiac cults in Ptolemaic and Roman Cyprus. In D. Michaelides, V. Kassianidou et R. S. Merrillees, Egypt and Cyprus in Antiquity, 144–150. Oxford. Arveiller-Dulong V. et Nenna M.-D. 2011. Les verres antiques du musée du Louvre. 3. Parures, instruments et éléments d’incrustation. Paris. Bailey D. M. 1988. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, vol. 3: Roman Provincial Lamps. London. Balandier Cl. (dir.) 2016. Nea Paphos. Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Approches archéologiques, historiques et patrimoniales. Bordeaux. Ballet P. 1980. Essai de recherche sur le culte d’Harpocrate. Figurines en terre cuite d’Égypte et du Bassin Méditerranéen aux époques hellénistique et romaine. Thèse de 3e cycle. Paris. Bonner C. 1950. Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. (University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series 49). Ann Arbor, London. Bricault L. 2005. Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques (RICIS). (MAIBL 31). Paris. Bricault L. (dir.) 2008. Sylloge Nummorum Religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (SNRIS). (MAIBL 38). Paris. Daszewski W. A. 1985. Testimony of the Isis Cult at Nea Paphos. In Fr. Geus et Fl. Thill (éds.), Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter, 50–66. Paris. Outre la thèse non publiée de Ballet 1980, voir par exemple Picaud et Podvin 2011 ; Podvin 2015a ; 2015b ; 2016. 15 Pour comprendre le contexte de Nea Paphos, on pourra se référer à un ouvrage récent : Balandier 2016. 14 256 J.-L. Podvin Delatte A. et Derchain Ph. 1964. Les intailles magiques gréco-égyptiennes. Paris. Deonna W. 1938. Le mobilier délien. (Exploration archéologique de Délos 18). Paris. Fischer M. et Jackson-Tal R.-E. 2003. A glass pendant in the shape of Harpokrates from Yavneh-Yam, Israel. JGS 45, 35–40. Flourentzos P. 2007. An unknown Graeco-Roman temple from the Lower City of Amathous. CCEC 37, 299–306. Gasse A. 1991. La stèle magique égyptienne de Kition-Bamboula. RDAC, 165–172. Gasse A. 2004. Les stèles d’Horus sur les crocodiles. Paris. Malaise M. 2005. Pour une terminologie et une analyse des cultes isiaques. Bruxelles. Malaise M. 2011. À la découverte d’Harpocrate à travers son historio-graphie. Bruxelles. Mastrocinque A. 2003. Sylloge Gemnaruum Gnosticarum. Parte I. (Bollettino di Numismatica. Monografia, 8.2.1). Roma. Mastrocinque A. 2014. Les intailles magiques du département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques. Paris, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.4000/ books.editionsbnf.1182. Michaelidès D. 2009. A boat-shaped lamp from Nea Paphos and the divine protectors of navigation in Cyprus. CCEC 39, 197-226, [on-line] https:// doi.org/10.3406/cchyp.2009.924. Michaelidou-Nicolaou I. 1978. The cult of oriental divinities in Cyprus. Archaic to Graeco-Roman times. In M. B. De Boer et T. A. Edridge (éds.), Hommages à M. J. Vermaseren. Recueil d’études offert par les auteurs de la série études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain à Maarten J. Vermaseren à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire le 7 avril 1978, 791–800. (ÉPRO 68.2). Leyde. Nenna M.-D. 1999. Les verres. (Exploration archéologique de Délos 37). Paris. Nicolaou K. 1965-1966. Archaeology in Cyprus, 1961-1966. AR 12, 27–43, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.2307/581183. Nicolaou K. 1967. Excavations at Nea Paphos. The House of Dionysos. Outline of the campaigns 1964–1965. RDAC, 100–125. Nicolaou K. 1978. Oriental divinities represented on the clay sealings of Paphos, Cyprus. In M. B. De Boer et T. A. Edridge (éds.), Hommages à M. J. Vermaseren. Recueil d’études offert par les auteurs de la série études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos 257 à Maarten J. Vermaseren à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire le 7 avril 1978, 849–853. (ÉPRO 68.2). Leyde. Oziol Th. 1977. Les lampes du musée de Chypre. (Salamine de Chypre 7). Paris. Perpillou-Thomas F. 1993. Fêtes d’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine d’après la documentation papyrologique grecque. Louvain. Picaud S. et Podvin J.-L. 2011. Les isiaca de Tarse et de sa région. In L. Bricault et R. Veymiers (dir.), Bibliotheca Isiaca II, 211–223. Bordeaux. Podvin J.-L. 2011. Luminaire et cultes isiaques. (Monographies Instrumentum 38). Montagnac. Podvin J.-L. 2012. Lampes à huile en forme de navire dans le monde gréco-romain. In Chr. Borde et Chr. Pfister (éds.), Histoire navale, histoire maritime. Mélanges offerts à Patrick Villiers, 116–124. Paris. Podvin J.-L. 2015a. Figurines isiaques en terre cuite d’Asie Mineure. In E. Lafli et A. Muller (éds.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2 : Iconographie et contextes. (Archaiologia). 209–217. Villeneuve d’Ascq. Podvin J.-L. 2015b. Lampes à décor isiaque du littoral égéen d’Asie mineure. In P. Kousoulis et N. Lazaridis (éds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodos 22-29 May 2008, 2071–2082. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241). Leuven, Paris, Bristol. Podvin J.-L. 2016. Sur la présence d’Harpocrate à Pétra et en Jordanie. Syria 93, 311–319. Śliwa J. 2013. Magical amulet from Paphos with the ιαεω-palindrome. SAAC 17, 293–302, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.12797/SAAC.17.2013. 17.24. Spaer M., Barag D., Orman T. et Neuhaus T. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem. Tran tam Tinh V. et Labrecque Y. 1973. Isis lactans. Corpus des monuments gréco-romains d’Isis allaitant Harpocrate. (ÉPRO 37). Leyde. Tran tam Tinh V., Jaeger B. et Poulin S. 1988. S. v. « Harpocrates », LIMC IV.1, 415–445 ; IV.2, 242–266. Veymiers R. 2005. Sérapis face au sanctuaire Paphia. À propos d’une gemme disparue de la collection Petrie. In Chr. Cannuyer (éd.), La langue dans tous ses états. Michel Malaise in honorem, 339–356. (Acta Orientalia Belgica 18). Bruxelles. 258 J.-L. Podvin Veymiers R. 2009. Ἵλεως τῷ φοροῦντι. Sérapis sur les gemmes et les bijoux antiques. Bruxelles. Yon M. 1994. Les enfants de Kition. In M.-O. Jentel et G. Deschenes-Wagner (éds.), Tranquillitas. Mélanges en l’honneur de Tran tam Tinh, 597–609. Québec. Jean-Louis Podvin c/o Univ. Littoral Côte d’Opale [email protected] Le succès d’Harpocrate à Nea Paphos PLANCHE 1 Pl. 1 : 1 – Lampe d’Harpocrate et Isis, Salamine de Chypre (d’après Podvin 2011, pl. 55). Pl. 1 : 2 – Amulette magique, Nea Paphos (d’après Śliwa 2013, pl. 1) S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Hadrien J. Rambach Brussels A MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTION IN KRAKÓW OF THE ‘TRIVULZIO MUSEUM’ IN MILAN Abstract: An early nineteenth-century manuscript is preserved in the Jagiellonian Library in Kraków. This document in Italian, entitled ‘Breve Descrizione del Museo Trivulzio’, describes the contents of a collection of an aristocratic family in Milan, as seen shortly after the death of its builder – Don Carlo Trivulzio (1715-1789). The author compares it to a published text in French by Aubin-Louis Millin, and publishes up-to-date descriptions of the engraved gems evoked in the manuscript. Thanks to various sources, five of those seven cameos and intaglios can also be illustrated together for the first time. Keywords: Trivulzio; Milan; Millin; cameos; intaglios; rings; collecting This article presents a manuscript entitled Breve Descrizione del Museo Trivulzio, preserved in the Biblioteka Jagiellońska in Kraków (ms. Ital. Qu. 25).1 Stamped ‘Ex Biblioth. Regia Berolinensi’, this volume entered the Royal Library in Berlin on 5 October 1849, accession no. 3318. It had been acquired via a certain ‘Franck’, after having been auctioned in Paris by ‘de Buce’ (or de Bull?).2 It was brought to Silesia during the Second World War and has since remained in Poland.3 With thanks to Anne-Beate Riecke and Monika Jaglarz for their kind assistance, to Alessandra Squizzato and Gabriella Tassinari for their suggestions and advice, and to Paweł Gołyźniak for examining the watermarks on my behalf. 2 The volume is listed by Lemm (1918, 79), without any precision on the provenance. The 1849 (?) auction could not be identified in Lugt 1953. 3 The manuscript bears short watermarks on the lower-right part of the pages: the letters 1 DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.11 262 H. J. Rambach Finely calligraphed, the text covers eight double-sided unnumbered folios in cursive script. As its title suggests, this is a general presentation of the contents of the Trivulzio collections, which can be divided into three principal sections: coins, antiquities, and books. The four initial pages are devoted to the coins, then six and a half pages to the artefacts (such as ivories, niellos and gems), and finally, five pages to the books and manuscripts. It is my intention to concentrate on the section dedicated to the Trivulzio collection of engraved gems (Rambach 2017), which reads: ‘[…] Passiamo ora alle gemme. La principale di esse è un superbo cameo di sorprendente bellezza, ed un vero capo di opera tra le antichità di tal genere. Esso rappresenta la testa di Antonia. Altri due pure rispettabili camei esprimono le teste l’uno di Adriano, l’altro di Commodo. Ricordarsi deve fra i camei la famosa Bolla trovata nel sepolcro di Maria moglie di Onorio quando fu desso scoperto in Roma nel secolo XVI. Altra consimile Bolla ha un’iscrizione greca esprimente un buon augurio per chi la porta. Sono pure cinquanta altri camei che altrove meriterebbero una singolar menzione. Vi si conservano pure quasi duecento scarabei antichi fra quali alcuni egiziani di maggior grandezza e con incisioni al di sotto, eccetto i più grandi che sono lisci. Non debbo qui omettere le due superbe corniole state già ad uso di sigillo segreto di Filippo Maria Visconti Duca di Milano, pubblicate già dal Conte Giulini nell’ultimo tomo delle Memorie di Milano alla pag. 553 ed un anello d’oro avente per gemma un sigillo di zaffiro, che rappresenta la testa di Federico IV detto comunemente III Imperatore col solito suo motto AEIOV. Evvè pure un qualche migliaio di gemme diverse incise in gran parte antiche, comprese alcune poche paste. […]’.4 HREN on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pages of the Trivulzio ‘description’; the letters ZONEN on the 5th page; and the letters HRE on the 6th page (supposedly HREN). I am grateful to Emanuel Wenger for his help in trying to identify – unfortunately unsuccessfully – these marks, which are not listed in the ‘Bernstein – The Memory of Paper’ database. In the absence of a definite writing-date (and author), it must be presumed that this manuscript was written in Milan in the 1810s, therefore probably on Austro-Hungarian or on French paper. 4 Manuscript in Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska in Kraków, folios 5r/5v. The text of the manuscript in Milan, Fondazione Trivulzio, folio 3r, is almost the same with only minor and insignificant variations: ‘ed un vero capo di opera’ is spelt instead ‘e un vero capo d’opera’, ‘moglie di Onorio’ as ‘moglie d’Onorio’, ‘cinquanta’ / ‘duecento’ are written ‘50.’ / ‘200.’, and ‘pag. 553’ is written ‘p. 553’. The text of the manuscript in Milan, Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana, is also almost the same with only minor and insignificant variations: ‘ora’ is missing in ‘Passiamo alle gemme’; ‘superbo’ is missing in ‘un cameo di sorprendente bellezza’; ‘ed un vero capo di opera tra le antichità di tal genere’ reads instead ‘è un capo d’opera le antichità di tal genere’, and this was added in-between two A manuscript description in Kraków... 263 This translates as: ‘Let us now go to the gems. The most relevant is a superb cameo of surprising beauty, and a real masterpiece among the antiques of its kind. It represents Antonia’s head. There are also two decent cameos which portray Hadrian’s and Commodus’ heads. We must recall among the cameos the famous bulla found in the sepulcher of Maria, Honorius’s wife, when it was discovered in Rome in the XVI century. A similar bulla has got a Greek inscription expressing good wishes for the person who carries it. There are fifty further cameos which would otherwise deserve a specific mention. There are also two hundred ancient scarabs, amongst which are some of the grandest Egyptian ones with engravings underneath, except the largest ones which are smooth. I must not omit the two superb carnelians that were used as a secret seal by Filippo Maria Visconti Duke of Milan, already published by Count Giulini in the last volume of the Memorie di Milano on page 553, and a golden ring with a sapphire seal gem, which represents the head of Friedrich IV well known as III Emperor with his usual motto AEIOV. There are also thousands of various engraved gems, for the most part antiques, including a few in paste.’ The similarity of this text with the description published in French in 1817 by Aubin-Louis Millin (1759-1818) is striking. ‘Parmi les pierres gravées, nous ferons remarquer principalement un camée d’une rare beauté, et qui est un véritable chef-d’œuvre parmi les antiques de ce genre. Il représente la tête d’Antonia ; deux autres beaux camées représentent la tête d’Adrien et celle de Commode. Parmi les camées, on doit remarquer la célèbre bulle qui a été trouvée dans le seizième siècle à Rome dans le tombeau de Marie, épouse d’Honorius. Un autre sceau semblable a une inscription grecque qui exprime un bon augure pour celui qui le porte. Il y a en outre cinquante camées qui mériteroient d’être décrits, et environ deux cents scarabées antiques, parmi lesquels il y en a d’égyptiens d’une grandeur extraordinaire, avec des figures gravées dessous ; les autres grands scarabées égyptiens sont lisses. Je ne dois pas oublier de parler des deux superbes cornalines qui servoient de sceau secret à Philippe-Marie Visconti, duc de Milan, et qui ont été publiées par le comte Giulini, dans le dernier tome des Mémoires de Milan, p. 553 [Voyez mon Voyage dans le Milanais, tom. I, pag. 135] ; d’une bague d’or ornée d’un cachet de saphir, lines whilst the following sentence is linked to this one with ‘che rappresenta…’; ‘desso’ is missing in ‘quando fu scoperto’; there is an additional ‘circa’ in ‘Sono pure circa 50. altri camei’ but ‘una’ is missing in ‘che altrove meriterebbero singolar menzione’; a shorter version is used for ‘le due superbe corniole secrete [with a C] di Filippo Maria Visconti’. 264 H. J. Rambach qui représente la tête de l’empereur Frédéric IV, vulgairement nommé Frédéric III, avec sa devise AEIOV, entourée de pierres gravées, en grande partie antiques.’ (Millin 1817a, 265-266). In fact, Millin did not have access to the Trivulzio museum, and instead Mazzuchelli supplied him with a manuscript in Italian, also entitled Breve Descrizione del Museo Trivulzio (Mazzucchelli P. c. 1816/17), a copy of which is preserved at the Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan (Rovetta 2008, 906). The manuscript elucidates the printed text: for whilst it is clear in the Italian manuscript that the collection contains thousands of other gems, in the French publication Millin seems to suggest that the sapphire ring is surrounded by ancient gems – as if the sapphire was set within other stones. Despite his original intentions, the information was not actually used for Millin’s Voyage en Italie (1818) but instead in his Annales encyclopédiques (1817). Who wrote the manuscript in Kraków, as well as why and when, remains to be established.5 It is noteworthy that the text given to Millin was not actually Mazzuchelli’s; it was instead his translation of notes – Cartas Familiares – made in the summer of 1791 by a Spanish Jesuit, Juan Andrès y Morell (1740-1817), during his visit to Milan.6 It is interesting to note that Andrés remarked on the Cufic coins amongst the collections of the ‘deceased abbot’ (Squizzato 2014, 290), something to which few visitors had paid attention. He published his notes (Andrès y Morell 1793, 139-148), indicating that they had been written in Mantua on 6 October 1791, but there is no mention of engraved gems, or of Islamic coins, so the published text cannot be that which Mazzuchelli provided to Millin. This text refers to seven engraved gems, the first one of which is said to be ‘a superb cameo of surprising beauty, and a real masterpiece among the antiques of the kind. It represents Antonia’s head’ (Pl. 1: 1) (Millin 1817a, 265-266; Malaguzzi Valeri 1913, 387 (illustrated); Malaguzzi Valeri The title of the Ambrosiana manuscript contains the word ‘esposizione’, crossed and replaced by ‘descrizione’. Whilst the manuscript in Kraków is written in a decorative hand, the manuscript in the Fondazione Trivulzio is rather poorly written, but there are no crossing-outs, so it is apparently not a draft and seems rather to be a quickly made copy. Instead, the manuscript at the Ambrosiana library is obviously a draft, full of corrections, but the two manuscripts in Milan seem to be by the same hand. 6 Andrès is often described as a Spanish Jesuit, which is exact but misleading: Jesuits had been expelled from Spain in 1767, and he was in Italy since, even becoming Prefect of the Royal Library in Naples (see Ravasi 2000, 410). It is interesting to note that this 1791 visit was not Andrès’s last contact with the Trivulzio family; letters survive which he sent to Gian Giacomo Trivulzio in May and June 1807, regarding the purchase of Spanish books (see Fuentes Fos 2015, 199). 5 A manuscript description in Kraków... 265 1923, 71, fig. 103; Seregni 1927, 23 (quote), 186-187 (description), 216 (Dutens), 223 (Hamilton offer); Squizzato 2014, 284). This cameo was purchased – before 1770 – by Don Carlo Trivulzio (1715-1789) ‘at low price from a peasant whose wife was wearing it at her neck’; it was later passed down within the family, and supposedly sold privately in the 1920s/30s.7 This piece is now lost, but is known from a 1920s photograph. This twolayered hardstone cameo, carved with the portrait of the right side of a lady, erroneously identified as Antonia minor (36 BC-AD 37), wife of Drusus maior (38-9 BC), is probably a Roman work of the late 1st century AD. This cameo can be compared with two small gems depicting a similar bust of a Flavian lady: a sardonyx cameo from the Guilhou & Merz collections (28 x 22mm) in the Antikensammlung des Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften in Bern (Vollenweider 1984, 179-182, no. 301; Megow 1987, 264-265, no. B33; Willers and Raselli-Nydegger 2003, no. 159), and a nicolo intaglio in the National Museum in Copenhagen (inv. nr. K2.162; Vollenweider 1984, 181, fig. 301A). Megow suggested the cameo was from the time of Vespasian (AD 69-79), whilst Vollenweider dated the Guilhou cameo from AD 80-90 (and its gold and emerald ring from either shortly afterwards or from the 3rd/4th century). In June 1776, Alessandro Verri (1741-1816) wrote to his elder brother Pietro (1728-1797): ‘As antiquarians we know each other very well. If Abbot Triulzi is aware of which medals can be sold in Rome, I myself know that he has a beautiful antique cameo representing a Livia but nothing else of the kind. Count Anguissola buys something here and he is perhaps the only one who buys cameos.’8 And his brother replied: ‘Abbot Triulzi’s cameo does not represent Livia, but Antonia. It is really beautiful, and Pichler saw it and regarded it as precious. It was purchased at low price because it was acquired from a peasant whose wife was wearing it at her neck.’9 Sir William Hamilton, His brother’s son Giorgio Teodoro Trivulzio (1728-1802), and by descent: Gian Giacomo Trivulzio (1774-1831), Giorgio Teodoro Trivulzio (1803-1856), Gian Giacomo Trivulzio (1839-1902), Luigi Alberico Trivulzio (1868-1938). 8 Letter from Alessandro no. XCI-903 (Rome, 15 June, 1776): ‘Fra noialtri antiquari ci conosciamo molto bene. Se l'abate Triulzi sa le medaglie vendibili in Roma, io so ch'egli ha un bel cammeo antico rappresentante una Livia e di tal genere non ha altro. Il conte Anguissola costì fa qualche acquisto ed è forse l'unico che compri cammei.’ (Giulini and Seregni 1934, 115). 9 Letter from Pietro n. XCVI-718 (Milan, 22 June, 1776): ‘Il cammeo dell'abate Triulzi non rappresenta Livia, ma Antonia. Veramente è bello, e Pichler l'ha veduto e pregiato. Fu comprato a basso prezzo perché si acquistò da un villano che lo faceva portare al collo a sua moglie.’ (Giulini and Seregni 1934, 120). 7 266 H. J. Rambach who had already admired it on 8 July 1771, saw it again on 25 June 1776 and shortly afterwards offered to give another cameo in exchange for it10 – which Don Carlo refused on 22 November: ‘one must believe that his cameo is less attractive than the Antonia, though all know that this knight knows beauty so well.’11 Previously, in February 1770, Louis Dutens (1730-1812) had offered to buy it for 300 zecchini, which Don Carlo declined (Tassinari 2015, 145-147). Don Carlo Trivulzio also owned, ‘deux autres camées représentent la tête d’Adrien et celle de Commode’ (Millin 1817a, 265-266). Unfortunately, those hardstone cameos, supposedly engraved with the heads of the Roman emperors Hadrian (AD 117-138) and Commodus (AD 180-192), are now lost, and no images are known12. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether they were ancient, Renaissance, or neoclassical gems. They were still part of the Museo Trivulzio in 1817, because the division of the collection between the two branches of the family had not yet taken place; they may have been inherited by the Trivulzio branch (which was dispersed privately in the 1920s/30s), or by Cristina Trivulzio di Belgioioso (1808-1871) (and apparently dispersed privately in the 1830s). Much more significant is ‘the famous bulla found in the sepulchre of Maria, Onorio’s wife when it was discovered in Rome in the XVI century’ (Pl. 1: 2, 3) (Millin 1817a, 265-266; Mazzucchelli 1819; Barbiera 1902, 255; Montesquiou-Fezensac 1937; Spier 2007, 138, no. 752; Paolucci 2008; Gagetti 2012). It consists of two carnelian cameos, stained white, set in a gold pendant set with emeralds and garnets of about 18 x 13mm. It is inscribed with the names of the family members of Maria, wife of Honorius (AD 384-423), Honori Maria Stelicho Serhna Vivatis and Stelicho Serhna Eycheri Thermantia Vivatis, and shows devices in the shape of Christograms. This Byzantine imperial jewel, datable to AD 398-407, was discovered in February 1544 in the chapel of Saint Petronilla in the old Saint Peter’s Basilica (Rome), along with other gems and rings (now dispersed and undocumented). It entered the collection of Filippo Archinto (1495-1558) and was still in Rome when Felice Caronni (1747The offer was made through Marcello Oretti (on whom see Perini Folesani, 2013, 457-460), who wrote a letter to Don Carlo on 25 October 1776. 11 ‘è ben da credersi che quel suo cammeo sia men bello della detta Antonia, mentre è a tutti noto che quel cavaliere distingue troppo il bello’. 12 In the absence of any illustration, we cannot attribute any skill to the author at identifying ancient portraits: these cameos certainly depicted laureate bearded middle-aged men, but this could describe most emperors in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. 10 A manuscript description in Kraków... 267 1815) of Milan acquired it. Caronni then sold it to Count Antonio Giuseppe della Torre di Rezzonico (1709-1785), at whose death it was acquired by Don Carlo Trivulzio (1715-1789). Then it descended to his nephew Giorgio Teodoro Trivulzio (1728-1802), whose son Gerolamo Trivulzio (1778-1812) was the father of Cristina Trivulzio di Belgioioso (1808-1871), who likely sold it (after 1845), unless it was sold by her daughter Maria Trotti Bentivoglio, née di Belgioioso (1838-1913). It was finally acquired in 1934 by Blaise de Montesquiou-Fezensac from the dealer Maurice Stora, and it was given to the Musée du Louvre in 1951 (inv. no. OA 9523). Especially close to the heart of Don Carlo – because he especially collected artefacts relating to the history of his hometown – were ‘the two superb carnelians that were used as a secret seal by Filippo Maria Visconti Duke of Milan’ (Pl. 2: 1-4) (Giulini 1760-65, 390 (drawing); Millin 1817a, 265-266; Millin 1817b, 135; Motta 1893, 989; Seregni 1927, 207; Squizzato 2014, 298, Fig. 4). Supposedly passed down within the family, and privately sold in the 1920s/30s, these pieces are now lost, but there survives a photograph of their plaster-casts that was taken in the early twentieth century and recently discovered by Alessandra Squizzato in the Fondazione Brivio-Sforza. Both were carnelian intaglios: one depicted a helmeted warrior, a shield with the Visconti viper at his shoulder, with the legend Phi. Ma. Agli.; the other depicted Sol driving a quadriga, holding a whip in one hand and a globe in the other, with the legend Phi. Marie Agli.13 If indeed used as secret seals by Filippo Maria Visconti (1392-1447), they date from the 15th century. One of Don Carlo’s most precious jewels – if genuine – was his ‘gold ring with a sapphire seal as gem, which represents the head of Friedrich IV well known as III Emperor with his usual motto AEIOV’ (Pl. 3: 1-3) (Millin 1817a, 265-266; Seregni 1927, 215). The acronym AEIOV, which is the series of all vowels in alphabetical order, is a mysterious device regularly used by the Habsburg Emperor Frederick III (Emperor 1452-1493) to mark his ownership of buildings and objects, the meaning of which was revealed by the emperor himself, shortly before dying: Alles Erdreich ist Österreich I am grateful to the anonymous referee for noticing the abbreviation-signs over the H and the A in the stone’s inscription, which suggest the following meaning: (seal of) PHIlippi MARIaE AnGLI. The title ANGLVS is already found on a medal by Pisanello for Filippo Maria Visconti, but it seems to have been used even earlier – since Gian Galeazzo Sforza (1351-1402), possibly in 1397 when the German Emperor gave the county of Angleria (Anghiera) to his son, to evoke a claimed ancestry of the Visconti family from the imaginary Anglus, son of Ascanius and grandson of Eneas – son of Venus and ancestor of the Romans. 13 268 H. J. Rambach untertan – ‘all the world is subject to Austria’ in German.14 It is not known when Don Carlo Trivulzio (1715-1789) acquired this ring, but he already owned it on 16 June 1759 when he received a visit by Duke Giovanni de Noya Carafa (1715-1768): although he agreed to exchange various ancient coins with him, he refused even to consider parting with this ring. Supposedly inherited within the family, and privately sold in the 1920s/30s, this piece is now lost, and no image is known. Finally, it may be noted that the volume in Kraków also contains a single-leaf manuscript letter by Giangiacomo IV Trivulzio (1774-1831), sent from Milan on 14 October 1824.15 The recipient is an unnamed man in Paris who seems to be a bibliophile, an acquaintance of both Trivulzio’s daughter and of the bibliographer Joseph van Praet (1754-1837). Van Praet, an acquaintance of Alexandre Dumas (Dumas 1842, 4), was the author of the Catalogue des livres imprimés sur vélin de la Bibliothèque du roi (Paris 1822, 6 volumes), and of the Catalogue des livres imprimés sur vélin qui se trouvent dans les bibliothèques tant publiques que particulières (Paris 1824-1828, 4 volumes). This letter relates to that project, and its content is rather ironic, as the first words are, ‘Sir, I have the pleasure to send you the note of my vellums; as you see I am truly poor’,16 and yet the Trivulzio library was in fact extremely rich, and well-represented in van Praet’s book. The letter and the manuscript are not written by the same hand, and their physical features also differ: whilst the catalogue measures 190 x 150mm and is on plain cream paper, the letter measures 185 x 119mm and is on very thin white paper. Therefore, this letter – although bound at the start of the volume – does not appear to be related to the manuscript. It remains of some interest, however, because of the passage where Giangiacomo expresses his pleasure at being able to help Jean Duchesne (1779-1855), and says that he will immediately have his examples of niello copied. Indeed, Duchesne illustrated twelve pieces from the Trivulzio collection in his 1826 book Essai sur les nielles, gravures des orfèvres florentins du XVe siècle, and thanked Giangiacomo for having sent him drawings of his items. See Meyers 1885-1890, 1. The hypotheses had been proposed that this was the abbreviation of a Latin phrase, either Austria est imperio optime unita or Austria erit in orbe ultima or Austriæ est imperare orbi universe. 15 The letter is on watermarked paper, but too little of the marks are visible to be able to identify it; it is possibly a coat of arms, with an arrow and letters (?). 16 ‘M.r J’ai le plaisir de vous envoyer la note de mes velins; Vous voyez que je suis bien pauvre.’ This list, to which he refers, is not bound into the volume. 14 A manuscript description in Kraków... 269 References Andrès y Morell J. 1793. Cartas familiares del Abate D. Juan Andres a su hermano D. Carlos Andres, dandole noticia del viage que hizo a varias ciudades de Italia en el año 1791, publicadas por el mismo D. Carlos, vol. 4. Madrid. Barbiera R. 1902. La Principessa Belgioioso. Milan. Dumas A. 1842. Excursions sur les bords du Rhin. Impressions de voyage. The Hague. Fuentes Fos C. D. 2015. Ilustración, Neoclasicismo y apología de España en la obra de Juan Andrés Morell (1740–1817). Tesis doctoral, Universitat de València, Facultat de Geografia i Història. Gagetti E. 2012. Bulla’ dell’imperatrice Maria. In G. Sena Chiesa (ed.), Costantino 313 d.C. L’Editto di Milano e il tempo della tolleranza, 208, no. 72. Milan. Giulini A. and Seregni G. 1934. Carteggio di Pietro e di Alessandro Verri, vol. 8. Milan. Giulini G. 1760-1765. Memorie spettanti alla storia, al governo, ed alla descrizione della Città e della campagna di Milano nei Secoli Bassi, vol. 6. Milan. Lemm S. 1918. Kurzes Verzeichnis der romanischen Handschriften. Berlin. Lugt F. 1953. Répertoire des catalogues de ventes publiques..., vol. 2: Deuxième période : 1826–1860. The Hague. Malaguzzi Valeri F. 1913. La corte di Ludovico il Moro, vol. 1: La vita privata e l’arte a Milano nella seconda metà del quattrocento. Milan. Malaguzzi Valeri F. 1923. La corte di Ludovico il Moro, vol. 4: Le arti industriali la letteratura la musica. Milan. Mazzuchelli P. date unknown. Breve descrizione del Museo Trivulzio. Milan, Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana, inv. S 162 inf., folios 157– 165v (manuscript). Mazzucchelli P. c. 1816/17. Breve descrizione del Museo Trivulzio. Archivio Fondazione Trivulzio. Araldica Uffici b. 3, fasc. 84 (manuscript). Mazzucchelli P. 1819. La bolla di Maria, moglie d’Onorio imperatore. Milan. Megow W.-R. 1987. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus. Berlin. Meyers J. 1885-1890. Meyers Konversations–Lexikon, vol. 1. Leipzig, Vienna. 270 H. J. Rambach Millin A.-L. 1817a. Description du Musée de Trivulzio à Milan. Annales encyclopédiques 6, 254–273. Millin A.-L. 1817b. Voyage dans le Milanais, vol. 1. Paris. Montesquiou-Fezensac B. de. 1937. Communication given on 22 Decem-ber 1937. Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 202. Morell J. A. date unknown. Cartas familiares de Juan Andres a su her-mano D. Carlos Andres. Milan, Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana, inv. S 162 inf., folios 81v–144 (manuscript). Motta E. 1893. Ambrogio Preda e Leonardo da Vinci (nuovi documenti). Archivio Storico Lombardo series 2 – vol. 10, 972–996. Paolucci F. 2008. La tomba dell’imperatrice Maria e altre sepolture di rango di età tardoantica a San Pietro. Temporis signa. Archeologia della tarda antichità e del medioevo, vol. 3, 225–252. Perini Folesani G. 2013. Marcello Oretti. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 79, 457–460. Rambach H. J. 2017. The coin-collection of Don Carlo Trivulzio (17151789). In M. Caccamo Caltabiano (ed.), XV International Numismatic Congress. Taormina 2015. Proceedings, vol. 1, 248–251. Rome, Messina. Ravasi G. 2000. Visitatori illustri nel Settecento. In Storia dell’Ambrosiana. Il Settecento, 393–414. Milan. Rovetta A. 2008. Storiografia e collezionismo d’arte nei materiali manoscritti di Pietro Mazzucchelli. In M. Ballarini, G. Barbarisi, C. Berra and G. Frasso (eds.), Tra i fondi dell’Ambrosiana. Manoscritti italiani antichi e moderni, vol. 2, 891–909. (Quaderni di Acme 105). Milan. Seregni G. 1927. Don Carlo Trivulzio e la cultura milanese dell’età sua 1715-1785. Milan. Spier J. 2007. Late Antique and Early Christian Gems. Wiesbaden. Squizzato A. 2014. Tra Milano e l’Europa. Viaggiatori, eruditi e studiosi al museo Trivulzio nei secoli XVIII e XIX. In D. Zardin (ed.), Lombardia ed Europa. Incroci di storia e cultura, 275–298. Milan. Tassinari G. 2015. I viaggiatori del Grand Tour e le gemme di Giovanni Pichler. Moncalieri. Vollenweider M.-L. 1984. Deliciae Leonis. Antike geschnittene Steine und Ringe aus einer Privatsammlung. Mainz. A manuscript description in Kraków... 271 Willers D. and Raselli-Nydegger L. 2003. Im Glanz der Götter und Heroen. Meisterwerke antiker Glyptk aus der Stiftung Leo Merz. Katalog-Handbuch zur Ausstellung im Kunstmuseum Bern, 17.10.2003-8.2.2004. Mainz. Hadrien J. Rambach Independent Researcher [email protected] PLATE 1 H. J. Rambach Pl. 1: 1 – Hardstone cameo depicting a Flavian lady, probably a Roman work of the 1st century AD. Reproduced from Seregni 1927, tav. XIV Pl. 1: 2-3 – The ‘Bulla of Maria’ found in the tomb of the wife of Honorius (AD 384-423). Photo © Musée du Louvre A manuscript description in Kraków... PLATE 2 Pl. 2: 1-4 – Carnelian intaglios believed to be the secret seals of Filippo Maria Visconti (1392-1447). Reproduced from Giulini 1760-65, 390 (drawings) and Squizzato 2014, 298 (casts) PLATE 3 H. J. Rambach Pl. 3: 1-3 – Gold ring set with a sapphire intaglio portrait of Frederick III (1452-1493). Reproduced from Giulini 1760-65, 390 (drawings) and Squizzato 2014, 298 (cast) S T U D I E S I N A N C I E N T A RT A N D C I V I L I Z AT I O N 21 Krakow 2017 Mateusz Bogucki,1 Arkadiusz Dymowski,2 Grzegorz Śnieżko 1 1. Warszawa, 2. Gdynia THE COMMON PEOPLE AND MATERIAL RELICS OF ANTIQUITY. THE AFTERLIFE OF ANCIENT COINS IN THE TERRITORY OF PRESENT-DAY POLAND IN THE MEDIEVAL AND MODERN PERIODS Abstract: Ancient coinage, almost exclusively Roman denarii from the 1st or 2nd century AD, constitutes a small percentage of hoards and other assemblages dated (with the latest coins present) to either the Middle Ages or to the modern period in the territory of present-day Poland. Such finds can be seen as strongly indicating that ancient coinage did function as means of payment at that time. This hypothesis is further supported by written sources. Moreover, ancient coins have also been recorded at other sites in medieval and modern period contexts e.g. in burial sites, which are less easy to interpret than hoards. Finds often include pierced coins and others showing suspension loops, which suggests they may have been used as amulets, jewellery or devotional medals. Other finds, such as Roman coins placed in alms boxes in modern period churches in Silesia, also point to a religious context. At the same time, written sources attest that at least since the Late Middle Ages, Roman denarii were known to common people as ‘St John’s pennies’. The name is associated with a Christian interpretation of the image of the emperor’s head on the coin, resembling that of John the Baptist on a silver platter. Keywords: ancient coins; Roman coins; coin finds; coin hoards; medieval context; modern context; monetary circulation; non-monetary functions of coins DOI: 10.12797/SAAC.21.2017.21.12 276 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Coins were the sole element of the material culture of Antiquity which could actually reach, on a large scale, the common people of East-Central Europe in the Middle Ages and the modern period.1 The region of East-Central Europe east of the Elbe and north of the Danube, including the territory of present-day Poland, was never, not even for a moment, a part of the Roman state. This means that all of the Roman coins found in this territory must be treated as imports. Roman coinage was brought to the territory of present-day Poland in vast amounts primarily during the Roman period (Bursche 1994, 471–475; Bursche 1996, 95–137; Dymowski and Myzgin 2014, 39–56; Dymowski 2016, 99–132). By contrast, Greek coins were imported in much smaller amounts during the pre-Roman and Roman periods (Mielczarek 1989, 38–112). Finally, Celtic coinage, in addition to arriving in the region by ways of import, was actually minted here during the final centuries BC (Rudnicki and Ziąbka 2010, 19–20; Rudnicki 2012, 41–49). Specifically, this was the case in southern and central Poland. Ancient coins were, and still are, being found in abundance in the area of East-Central Europe (including present-day Poland). The finds are most commonly Roman denarii from the 1st or 2nd century AD, often recorded in hoards of several thousand pieces. However, other types of ancient coins are also repre-sented in the finds from the area. Ancient coinage, almost exclusively Roman denarii, also constitutes a small percentage of hoards and other assemblages dated (with the latest coins present) to either the Middle Ages (from the 10th century) or to the modern period (to the 19th century). Such finds can be seen as strongly indicating that ancient coinage did function as means of payment within the period of our interest, especially since this hypothesis is further supported by written sources. Moreover, ancient coins have also been recorded at other sites in the medieval and modern period contexts, such as in burial sites, which are less easy to interpret than hoards. Finds sometimes include pierced coins, which suggests they may have been used as amulets, jewellery or devotional medals. Other finds, such as Roman coins placed in alms boxes in modern period churches in Silesia, also point to a religious context. Additionally, some silver vessels are known to have been decorated with ornaments fashioned from Roman coins. The present publication reports on the results of research completed within the Use of ancient coins in East-Central Europe in the medieval and modern periods Project No. 2016/23/B/HS3/00173 conducted at the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, financed from the resources of the National Science Centre, Poland. 1 The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 277 At the same time, written sources attest that at least from the Late Middle Ages, Roman denarii were known to common people as ‘St John’s pennies’ (pieniążki św. Jana) (Abramowicz 1981, 81–91; Szlapińskij 1997, 72; Mielczarek 1999, 244–245; Mielczarek 2002, 468–469; Jaworski and Crişan 2012, 259–260; Siwiak 2014, passim; cf. Abramowicz 1983, passim; Abramowicz 1987, passim). The name is associated with a Christian interpretation of the image of the emperor’s head on the coin, resembling that of John the Baptist on a silver platter. The term, still in use in the 19th century in non-academic circles, evolved into several variants. Roman coins were also called główki św. Jana (‘St. John’s heads’), denary św. Jana (‘St. John’s denarii’), or Iwankowe (‘Little Ivan’s coins’) in the eastern reaches of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. German speakers called them Johannesschüssel. The earliest record mentioning ‘Saint John’s pennies’ in Poland is found in a mid-15th century source (Abramowicz 1981, 81–91; Mielczarek 1999, 244–245). It is believed that these coins were associated with local Saint John’s Eve celebrations, possibly in the sense that peasants were convinced that magical artefacts such as ‘Saint John’s pennies’ could be found more easily and in greater numbers precisely on Saint John’s Eve. For now at our disposal there is a complete set of archaeological sources regarding our area of interest – a catalogue of all ancient coins (in fact only Roman issues) recovered in the territory of present-day Poland in medieval and modern contexts (approximately from the 7th century AD2 until the turn of the 19th century), recorded by the end of 2017.3 Roman coins in early medieval contexts have been recorded by German and Polish researchers even at the beginning of the 20th century (Schuman 1902, 80, 83; Regling 1912, 231; Beltz 1927, 184–196; Łęga 1930, 343). An essential study of this phenomenon was completed in 1958 by Ryszard Kiersnowski (1958, 5–14) who analysed the occurrence of Roman coins in early medieval hoards In fact, there are no ancient coins found in Poland in contexts dated to earlier than 10th century. 3 Updated materials drawn from the source databases created (with great effort and considerable resources) as an outcome of two previous projects financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (as part of the National Programme for the Development of Humanities): Polish Early Medieval treasures - Inventory. Registration of Early Medieval coin hoards in Poland (from 6th to mid-12th centuries) led by Mateusz Bogucki and Finds of Roman coins from Poland and the Territories Historically Associated with Poland (FMRPL) with Aleksander Bursche as its leader (database available online: http://frcpl.uw.edu.pl/). 2 278 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko from Poland. The same question was revisited in 2007 by Anna Zapolska (2007, 149–178) who extended the scope of analysis to ancient coin finds from burials in settlements, and noted that migration-period finds and early medieval finds may not be examined together. The former are evidence of extended circulation of imperial coins, the latter of discoveries made during the early medieval period. At the present stage of inquiry this inter-pretation remains valid. Currently we have a record of 34 early medieval finds containing at least 58 ancient coins. Of these finds 28 are hoards dating to the 10th and 11th centuries, with 45 ancient coins among their contents. A further six Roman coins were found in five settlements. A truly exceptional site is the 11th-century cemetery at Dziekanowice in Greater Poland, with a record of seven Roman denarii found in graves (Suchodolski 2016, 176, 180; FMP I.32: 52, 67, 98, 118, 138, 140, 143). An important issue in the study of our subject is source criticism. If the presence of Roman coins in hoards and in early medieval burials does not raise any major doubts, we need to be cautious when it comes to finds from settlements and stray finds. This problem is illustrated well by the case of the settlement at Janów Pomorski identified with the early medieval trade emporium Truso. Investigated over many seasons of research, this site yielded one of the largest assemblages of single coin finds in Europe – more than 1,000 Islamic dirhams and several medieval European denarii (FMP V.A.18–19). The rare Roman denarii also present in this assemblage were included by A. Zapolska in her catalogue of ancient coins discovered in an early medieval context (Zapolska 2007: 152, 162, nos. 11–12). However, a later extensive archaeological investigation of this site revealed, under the early medieval stratigraphy identified with the emporium, and also outside it, the presence of a large Roman period settlement of the Wielbark culture people (Machajewski and Jurkiewicz 2012, 185–271) where Roman denarii were also recorded (Bogucki 2012, 41–42, nos. 1–4). Obviously, it is more than likely that the 9th- and 10th-century settlers discovered some Roman coins from the earlier settlement. We have no way of proving this, but it does seem that a vast majority of the Roman coins should be linked with the Wielbark culture rather than the early medieval settlement. In finds from an early medieval (pre-13th century) context the Roman denarii account for only a fraction (0.24‰) of the total silver. The largest number – 27 ancient coins – surfaced in 12 finds recorded in Greater Poland (Wielkopolska). In Pomerania (Pomorze) 20 Roman denarii were identified in 13 finds. From Mazovia and Podlahia (Mazowsze and Podlasie) we have 279 The common people and material relics of Antiquity... a record of six Roman denarii from four finds. In the five hoards known from Silesia (Śląsk) there were five ancient coins. Not a single Roman coin identified in an early medieval context is known from Lesser Poland (Małopolska). The distribution of individual find categories by region is shown in Table 1. Hoard Burial Settlement Total Poland finds/coins Greater Poland Pomerania 28/45 1/7 5/6 34/58 10/19 1/7 1/1 12/27 12/19 Mazovia, Podlahia 1/2 1/1 13/20 3/4 4/6 Silesia 5/5 5/5 Table 1. Ancient coin finds found in an early medieval context in Poland by find category and region As may be seen from the above list, most of the ancient coins were recorded in Greater Poland and Pomerania, with only sporadic finds or none at all noted in other regions. Previously, the explanation offered for this distribution pattern was that in Greater Poland and Pomerania the number of early medieval finds is the largest, thus the frequency of Roman coins in them is statistically higher (Zapolska 2007, 153–154). Indeed, there are more of these finds in Greater Poland and Pomerania (respectively, 289 and 291) than in Mazovia and Podlahia (220). But it should be noted that Tum, the site of discovery of 3 denarii (FMP III.183–184), lies in the Łęczyca district of Mazovia, right by the border with Greater Poland, and the hoard from Kolczyn lies in north-western Mazovia at the same latitude as Włocławek. Thus, it turns out that the only coin recorded in an early medieval context in Mazovia ‘proper’ is the single find (and as such, unreliable) of a denarius from Kamianka Nadbużna (FMP I.35) (Pl. 1: 1). If we consider that in Mazovia there is a vast number of hoards from the Roman period and early medieval age, some of them large, such a disproportion is intriguing, and hard to explain at the present stage of research. Perhaps, this difference is the result of dissimilar topography of the settlement network. Consequently, we should investigate whether in each of these regions’ settlements occupied sites during the Roman period similar to those of Early Middle Ages. Perhaps, in Greater Poland and Pomerania settlements occupied roughly the same sites as in the Roman period, unlike those in Mazovia and Lesser Poland. However, this issue calls for separate studies based on archaeological data, which 280 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko definitely exceeds the framework adopted for the present review. Another possible explanation – also to be examined in the course of future research – may lie in different methods of tilling the soil used during the Early Middle Ages in particular regions. For it is obvious that in the 10th and 11th centuries the ancient coins were discovered nearly always by accident, most often during construction and agricultural work. A closer analysis of early medieval hoards containing Roman coins shows that their finds differ not only in their territorial but also their chronological distribution (Pl. 1: 2). Although certainly the largest number of hoards had been placed in hiding during the first half of the 11th century, it is evident that the older deposits dating to the late 10th century prevail in Greater Poland and Silesia, whereas younger deposits dominate in Pomerania. And although the earliest hoard with a Roman denarius originates from Pomerania (Strzelce Dolne II, t.p.q. 949, FMP II.200), the earlier hoards dating to the 10th century definitely dominate in the south – this is demonstrated by six hoards found in Greater Poland and Silesia taken together, as compared to three hoards recorded in Pomerania. It is also relevant that the youngest hoard with an ancient coin known from Greater Poland was deposited in 1037, while in Pomerania for the period from the 1030s until the end of the 11th century we have a record of fewer than seven such finds. This territorial and chronological divergence is hard to explain at the present stage of research given that in Greater Poland and in Pomerania alike we find a large number of hoards datable to this same period. One possible explanation would be the differences mentioned earlier (and a different dynamic of change) in methods of cultivation, or which at present appears to be more likely, the consolidation of the state fiscal control in Silesia and Greater Poland in the first decades of the 11th century, and a lack of this control in Pomerania during the same period. The preponderance of Roman coins noted in early medieval hoards occurred singly (complete), but some were found as fragments. That they were hacked suggests their use was like that of the early medieval coins – they served as a medium of exchange accepted by their weight (Bogucki 2011, 129–148). In only a few cases was the number of Roman coins in a find higher. Most of these finds were at the same time the largest of the early medieval hoards known from Poland in general. The hoard from Dobrzyca near Pleszew containing an unspecified number of obscure early medieval coins included three undetermined Roman denarii (FMP I.31). The hoard from Dzierżnica II in Greater Poland (t.p.q. 980/1–989/90), weighing over 15kg and containing more than 20,000 coins, included three The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 281 fragments of Roman coins: two denarii of Antoninus Pius and a denarius or an antoninianus dated to the 3rd century (FMP I.35; Gałęzowska 2016, 225). In the hoard from Lisówek (Leissower Mühle) near Rzepin (t.p.q. 1014), weighing over 10kg and containing around 5,000 coins, mostly German issues, anonymous cross-denarii, Bohemian and English denarii, there were also five Roman denarii: a Domitian, an Antoninus Pius, a Marcus Aurelius, a Lucius Verus and a Crispina (FMP I.134). In hoards from Pomerania the largest number, at least five ancient coins, were found in the hoard from Rybice (t.p.q. 983/5). Denarii of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Maximinus Thrax and folles of Diocletian and Constantinus I occurred mostly next to dirhams, but also with German coins, anonymous cross-denarii, and Bohemian, Danish and Italian denarii (FMP II.174). In the hoard from Słupsk I (t.p.q. 990), along with the typical dirhams or German coins, over 3,000 pieces in total, were four denarii: one each of Nero, Domitian, and Hadrian, and one undetermined (FMP II.185). As may be seen from the above list, the larger number of Roman denarii in a hoard nearly always goes hand in hand with its size. On one occasion only ancient coins were recorded in the territory of Poland at an early medieval cemetery. At Dziekanowice near Ostrów Lednicki seven Roman denarii surfaced in five burials. It is interesting that four of them are denarii subaerati (Pl. 2: 1-7). Each was found in a different burial. Grave no. 14/98 held a subaeratus of Antoninus Pius; grave no. 72/99 – a complete denarius of Hadrian; grave 85/02 – a subaeratus of Hadrian; grave 11/04 – a denarius of Marcus Aurelius; grave 16/07 – a subaeratus of Trajan; grave 68/07 – a denarius of Septimius Severus, and finally, a subaeratus of Marcus Aurelius was a stray find but it definitely comes from a destroyed burial. We have no other record to confirm that Roman coins were used as Charon’s obol during the Early Middle Ages. Stanisław Suchodolski has suggested that some assemblage of Roman coins had surfaced in the vicinity of Ostrów Lednicki in the 11th century: the coins spread through the local community and a part of them were placed in graves as offerings (Suchodolski 2016, 180). What is also noteworthy is that as many as four of the ancient coins from the Dziekanowice cemetery are subaerati. Perhaps they are part of a phenomenon observed during the 11th century of ‘economy of the offerings’, where an attempt to meet the obligations dictated by custom, ritual and beliefs went hand in hand with the wish to offer less valuable specimens, harder to sell on the market (Musiałowski 2010, 139–157; Książek 2010, 7–30; Suchodolski 2012, 88–89). 282 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko It is clear from the brief presentation of our material given above that coin finds recorded in an early medieval context in Poland are exceedingly rare, and mostly appeared in monetary circulation one might say by accident. Ancient coins have been discovered during the Middle Ages as they are today. Until recently, the discovery of early coins, e.g. making up a hoard, was always a random occurrence, during all manner of earthwork – whether associated with construction or farm work. Before the introduction of electronic detecting devices, the only way to obtain antiquities metho-dically and deliberately was by robbery of easily identified burials – grave mounds. In the landscape of the Odra and Vistula river basins prehistoric grave mounds are widespread. Still, thanks to long years of archaeological fieldwork we know that Roman coins are found in them extremely rarely. On the other hand, throughout Poland we have a record of hoards of Roman coins and their stray finds from settlements. Discovered by accident, they would have furnished the small series of Roman denarii and folles which were then reintroduced into circulation during the 10th and 11th centuries. The study of this phenomenon is only in its early stages but even now it is evident that they are bringing in more information about the early medieval period than about the ancient coins themselves. As for ancient coin finds dating to the period of the later Middle Ages and the modern period (13th to 19th centuries), they fall into a number of categories. There are hoards and single finds which include grave goods and foundation sacrifices. Yet another form of reusing ancient coins during a period much removed from the time of their issue would be, as mentioned earlier, by having them set into metal vessels, using them as jewellery or offering them in a church as alms. This is illustrated below using a number of selected examples. At the present stage of research, we have a record of eleven hoards dating to the Late Middle Ages (not earlier than the 14th century) and later, as late as the end of the 19th century which had ancient coins among their contents, all of them – let as add – Roman issues. Compared to the 28 hoards assigned to the early medieval period, this number is more than 60% lower. Of four deposits dated to the Late Middle Ages, three were recorded in Silesia4 and one in Greater Poland.5 The time of deposition of three of them was Dolna, comm. Leśnica (Oelsner 1866, 360–361; Ciołek 2008, 58, no. 73); Strzelce Opolskie, administrative seat of a county (Ciołek 2008, 236–237, no. 353); Zakrzów, comm. Gogolin (Ciołek 2008, 307, no. 465). 5 Locality Sady, comm. Tarnowo Podgórne (Kubiak 1998, 448, no. 675). 4 The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 283 established as the 14th century, while for the hoard from the Dolna locality the chronological range was extended to the 16th century (Oelsner 1866, 360–361; Ciołek 2008, 58, no. 73). At the same time, we have to note that information about these hoards is very scanty. The Roman coins recorded in them were issues from 1st-3rd centuries AD. Modern hoards containing ancient coins are known to date to every century between the 16th and the 19th centuries (Pl. 3: 1), the latter marking the upper limit of the chronological span adopted in the present text.6 Most of the modern deposits featured Roman silver coins, dated first of all to the 2nd century AD. The largest number of hoards has been documented for the 17th century. One of them, moreover, may be of heightened interest considering of the identity of the owner of the hidden goods. This treasure was described by Jarosław Dutkowski (2010, 98–114), who analysed the coins and using this input established the date of deposition of the hoard to the period after 1630. It was discovered in Lower Silesia at Grzmiąca. Along with the coins it included jewellery, cutlery, medals, and a princely sceptre and orb. The two latter bore an inscription which helped Dutkowski to identify their owner as Prince Zdenek Adalbert Lobkowitz and speculate that the valuables in the hoard come from a robbery of the prince’s estate in Bohemia during the Thirty Years’ War. Of more relevance for the purpose of this study are coins recorded in this hoard, mostly gold and silver specimens issued in the 16th and 17th centuries Along with them were two ancient gold coins – an aureus of Hadrian and a solidus of Valentinian I. The hoard from Grzmiąca is the only case known from Poland of a medieval or a modern hoard containing ancient gold coins. Next, the hoard unearthed at Korzkiew in Little Poland in the 18th century consisted exclusively of Roman coins and was definitely deposited before the medieval period. However, it is relevant to our discussion because it demonstrates yet another use ancient coins had in the modern period, namely their reuse as a decorative element. Some of the coins were melted down for their metal, as did the Krakow Goldsmith Józef Ceypler in 1739-1745 in casting a tankard commissioned by Adam Jordan, and setting This not mean that we do not know of 20th century group finds of modern coins containing antique issues –e.g. the hoard from Popkowice, comm. Urzędów, Lublin voiv., deposited after 1914 (Męclewska and Mikołajczyk 1991, 258–259, no. 1859). It is likely to be a case of a cached numismatic collection, this is suggested by the variety of the coins both in terms of the country of their provenance and chronology. The earliest specimens are a follis of Constantine I and a half follis of Crispus. All the other coins are 16th-early 20th century issues. 6 284 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko into it 188 ancient coins, presumably the better-preserved specimens. Most of them were minted before the reign of Antoninus Pius. The tankard is now in the National Museum in Poznań,7 and has been published repeatedly complete with photographs of the coins and their determinations (cf. Szuda 1963; Kunisz 1985, 89–93, no. 110; Sobczak-Jaskulska 1997). Roman coins discovered in hoards were used in a similar manner also in the 20th century; this is shown by two objects decorated with them.8 Another form of reuse of ancient coins in the modern period is offering them as alms in church during offertory. All the cases known to us at present happened in Silesia.9 This can hardly be evidence of a special predilection of the inhabitants of this region for ancient coins, but neither can it be explained by their finds being more common in Silesia. As to the intention behind offering them, one plausible interpretation would be the one invoked above when discussing Roman coins discovered in early medieval burials. With no better use for the coins discovered, the finders could have offered them as alms, fulfilling in this way the religious duty without loss to their domestic budget.10 This interpretation is confirmed by a written reference to seven Roman coins from Jelcz-Laskowice, where according to reports many Roman coins had been found by the local people, of which some Inv. No. MNP Rm 146. Before 1900 a hoard of Roman coins came to light at Laskowa, comm. loco, Little Poland voiv. Five specimens passed to the parish priest at Limanowa and were used in 1901 in decorating the nodus of a chalice (Bodzek and Madyda-Legutko 1997). Another deposit surfaced between 1931 and 1933 at Jeziorko, comm. Przykona, Great Poland voiv. Of this great hoard 11 Roman denarii survived and were linked to make a bracelet. After the Second World War this piece of jewellery was submitted to the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography in Łódź where it remains at present (inv. no. MAEŁ-N-A 2241–2251). About the hoard – cf. Gupieniec 1954, 41–42, no. 11 and Mikołajczyk 1981, 30, no. 115 and plate III with a photograph of the bracelet. 9 Ancient coins used as alms were recorded in the following localities in the Lower Silesian voiv.: Jelcz-Laskowice, comm. loco (Ciołek 2008, 91–92, no. 137), Łagiewniki, comm. loco (Ciołek 2008, 138–139, no. 216.1), Witoszyce, comm. Góra (Ciołek 2008, 277– 278, no. 424), Opole voiv.: Błotnica Strzelecka, comm. Strzelce Opolskie (Ciołek 2008, 26–27, no. 15.1) and Silesian voiv.: Krzyżowice, comm. Olszanka (Ciołek 2008, 125–126, no. 191). Things were no different also in the 20th century – cf. references to Roman coins discovered in church collection boxes at e.g. Sulisławice, comm. Ząbkowice Śląskie, Lower Silesian voiv. (Ciołek 2008, 242, no. 362), and Tarnowskie Góry, administrative seat of a county, Silesian voiv. (Ciołek 2008, 258–259, no. 391). 10 According to the research literature Roman coins turned up in church collection boxes; this presumably gave the givers of these offerings a feeling of impunity as the risk of being caught in the act was minimal. 7 8 The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 285 were given to children to play with and others were offered in church as alms (Ciołek 2008, 91–92, no. 137, with previous literature and a list of archival sources). An interesting category of finds are foundation sacrifices. Three can be named as possibly belonging to this category, although it needs stressing that in none of these cases is this interpretation conclusive, for lack of more detailed data. One of these finds came to light in Łódź in Kasztelańska Street during work. Inside a shattered brick a denarius of Antoninus Pius was found. Describing this find Stanisława Kubiak concluded that the coin had found its way into the brick by accident, with the clay (Kubiak 1979, 58, no. VII; cf. also Mikołajczyk 1981, 41, no. 170 and plate V: 2). However, an alternate explanation is not out of the question, namely that it had been placed deliberately inside the brick as it was being moulded. Similar to the Early Middle Ages, during the later period ancient coins recorded in a funeral context make up the rarest category. We have no record on ancient coins found in a grave from the Late Middle Ages. From the modern period just one such find is known, as yet unpublished, but within a certain archaeological context.11 This coin came to light in Inowrocław in Kujawy.12 During archaeological work on a Franciscan church and monastery led in 2010 by Marcin Woźniak, twenty medieval and modern graves were unearthed in the nave. Found resting on the breastbone of a 30–35-year-old woman, a burial dated by the author of the research to the 17th century, was a denarius of Trajan with a hole 1mm in diameter (Pl. 3: 2). Its reverse was quite worn, which coupled with the hole made above the head of the emperor suggesting, according to W. Siwiak, a deliberate act meant to erase the coin’s nature as a medium of payment and lend it the function of a devotional object (Siwak 2014). This was also the only burial with grave goods which (besides the coin) included a bead of rock crystal, found by the woman’s pelvis (Woźniak 2010). For form’s sake we must note also a coin find from Śniatycze, Lublin voiv. reportedly discovered in a modern grave. However, with details about this find as scarce as theyare it must remain in the ‘unreliable’ In 2014, during the XI International Numismatic Conference in Augustów it was presented in his paper by Wojciech Siwiak (2014). 12 For giving us information about this find and permission to publish we are indebted to Mr. Marcin Woźniak of Jan Kasprowicz Museum Department of Archaeology in Inowrocław. 11 286 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko category.13 Even if we did take this specimen into account at the present level of recording of ancient coin finds from later contexts, this category of grave offering is still the smallest of them all. There is also a group of finds which do not lend themselves easily to interpretation: ancient coins found in late medieval and modern cultural layers resulting from, e.g. levelling. One such find is a denarius of Antoninus Pius found in Sandomierz during archaeological fieldwork in Forteczna Street. Kamil Kaptur, who published this coin, speculated that either it entered the deposit as a result of medieval earthmoving activity together with earth and rubble or was dropped at the time (Kaptur 2010, 53, 57, 59, no. 48 and phot. 5). Two other coins come from archaeological fieldwork carried out in Kielce in Najświętszej Marii Panny Square. The fill of a storage pit hewn in the rock, dated provisionally to the 12th-14th centuries, yielded two 4th-century AD bronzes: a follis of Constans I and a cententionalis of Constantius II (Pl. 3: 3-4). The authors of the excavation report noted the absence of traces of Roman period settlement in the excavated site, leading them to recognize the two coins as ‘St John’s pennies’ (Gliński and Glińska 2012, 26–27). As well, five Roman coins are known from archaeological fieldwork carried out in different areas of Gdańsk (cf. Paszkiewicz 2013, 212). However, these finds need further study, first of all to establish the chronology of the cultural layers from which they were excavated. Another stray find worth mentioning is a Marcus Aurelius bronze found at Chełmża before 1901 (Ciołek 2001, 33, no. 29/2). At the time of discovery this coin had a loop attached to its reverse in a way suggesting that it could have been used in the 19th century, possibly earlier, as a clothes button. 13 Recovered in 1838 and described in the Warsaw journal Biblioteka Warszawska: ‘A copper coin larger than a trojak of Emperor Philip, deceased AD 249, found in a grave’ (Biblioteka Warszawska 1842, 680). In later literature it was suggested that the coin had come to light ‘when laying in 1838 the foundations for a new [Greek Catholic – authors] church built by squire Antoni Załuski’ (Triller 1991, 61, no. 72). Recently, Ł. Miechowicz proposed to interpret this coin tentatively as a devotional object, adding also that the grave may have been of modern date (Miechowicz 2011, 342). However, we have to note that with no closer details known about the grave (inhumation? cremation?), its dating included, this conclusion must remain in the sphere of conjecture. It is possible that the burial dated to Antiquity, belonging to the people of the Wielbark Culture known to have lived in this region (cf. Sadowski 2007, passim; Kokowski 2007, 175). These communities practiced both cremation and inhumation. Yet another possibility is that the grave was indeed of modern date but the coin was nor part of its inventory and had found its way into the fill of the grave pit by accident, and had nothing to do with the burial ritual. The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 287 We propose to end this section of our study discussing ancient coin finds recorded in late medieval and modern contexts with some statistics. Out of 1,003 finds from the period 1146-1500 recorded in the catalogue developed by S. Kubiak in cooperation with B. Paszkiewicz, only three were identified as Roman coins, or 0.29% of that assemblage. A similar percentage was found in hoards containing Roman coins deposited in the period 1500-1944. In an assemblage of 1,890 group finds listed in the catalogue of M. Męclewska and A. Mikołajczyk, Roman coins were recorded in five cases, or 0.26%. We deliberately decided to use the numerical data related to finds listed in the catalogues, because if we included finds containing Roman coins not mentioned in them, to keep the ratio we would have to include all the other finds, e.g. those from the most recent discoveries. In any case, even with the figures given here it is obvious that ancient coins make up a very minor fraction of late medieval and modern finds. So at the moment one thing is certain: in general, finds of ancient coins in medieval and modern contexts in present-day Poland are rare, making them difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, two aspects of the outlined research problem will need to be considered in the immediate future.14 First of all, one must examine the sources of ancient coins used in Poland and neighbouring areas throughout the Middle Ages and the modern period. At present, three hypotheses might be proposed: (1) an influx of ancient coins from other territories, which seems plausible considering the Viking activity in the Early Middle Ages and taking into account ancient coinage recorded in Viking-context sites in Scandinavia (Zapolska 2007, 158–160); (2) continuous and unbroken circulation of ancient coinage imported into the region in antiquity, which in turn seems rather unlikely, given what research in this area has revealed so far (Gumowski 1956, 106; Zapolska 2007, 158–160); (3) secondary use of ancient coinage recovered in the Middle Ages and the modern period, either discovered accidentally or deliberately looted from graves (Gumowski 1956, 106; Kiersnowski 1958, 5–14; Kunisz 1969, 9; Mikołajczyk 1975, 82; Zapolska 2007, 159–160). The third hypothesis is particularly well-documented in written sources dated to the Late Middle Ages and later periods (Abramowicz 1981, 81–91; Szlapińskij 1997, 72; Mielczarek 1999, 244– 245; Mielczarek 2002, 468–469; Jaworski and Crişan 2012, 259–260; Siwiak 2014, passim; cf. Abramowicz 1983, passim; Abramowicz 1987, passim). 14 As regards research tasks planned within the Use of ancient coins in East-Central Europe in the medieval and modern periods project mentioned in footnote 1. 288 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Secondly, the forthcoming research will focus on establishing the functions of ancient coinage in Poland during the times between 10th and 18th/19th centuries. To this aim, the analysis will be informed with two main categories of sources: the rich store of information available in both medieval and early modern texts, as well as the archaeological contexts of both medieval and modern sites where ancient coins were recovered. In their present state, studies seem to suggest that ancient coins were used as means of payment in later times and constituted a small proportion of the currency used in the Middle Ages and the modern period. What remains to be established however, is to what extent ancient coinage functioned as money and how often its use was more limited, e.g. to providing a source of precious metals. Furthermore, ancient coins could also have been used not as money, but as Charon’s obols or worn as amulets, or jewellery. The following processes and phenomena will be considered as the background for the above-mentioned research problems: (1) the influx and use of ancient coins in the European Barbaricum in the pre-Roman and Roman periods and during the Migration Period; (2) collecting of ancient coins in Poland and neighbouring territories the 18th/19th centuries) and (3) prehistoric and antique artefacts (excluding ancient coins, both imported from the Mediterranean region and produced locally) recovered in medieval and modern period contexts in East-Central Europe. The analysis of the phenomena in the context of present-day Poland will be further complemented by a comparative analysis of the same phenomena in neighbouring territories of East-Central and Northern Europe: in present-day East Germany (east of the Elbe); in Rus’ (present--day Belarus and Ukraine); on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea (the present-day Baltic States and Kaliningrad Oblast); in Bohemia, Moravia (present-day Czech Republic) and Slovakia; as well as in Denmark (including Bornholm) and Sweden (including Gotland and Öland). Through an analysis of such a long-lasting and multifaceted phenomenon, the planned research has the potential to answer many questions about the history of money in medieval and modern East-Central Europe. The results are expected to shed light on the problem of how such coinage functioned as currency, despite being unregulated in local markets. Furthermore, they could have the potential to answer some of the questions concerning the legal and economic systems of countries of East-Central Europe within the studied timeframe. Moreover, the project is expected to provide new data sets useful in understanding the religious or magical The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 289 beliefs and customs of the East-Central European population in the Middle Ages and the modern period. It is important to stress that the data will primarily concern the common population, not belonging to cultural or social elites, and should prove very interesting for studies of both pre-Christian and Christian beliefs associated with Saint John’s Eve. Furthermore, the planned research will explore questions related to the reception of Classical Antiquity and ancient history in general by the common population of East-Central Europe, and also is expected to produce strong data which would in turn allow for a better understanding of how the ‘antiquities’ functioned within the medieval and modern societies, particularly among people from outside the social and cultural elites. Translation: Anna Kinecka Abbreviations FMP = Bogucki M., Ilisch P. and Suchodolski S. (eds.). 2013-2017. Frühmittelalterliche Münzfunde aus Polen. vols. I–V. Warszawa. References Abramowicz A. 1981. Początki zainteresowań monetą antyczną w Polsce. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria Numizmatyczna i Konserwatorska 1, 81–91. Abramowicz A. 1983. Dzieje zainteresowań starożytniczych w Polsce, cz. 1: Od średniowiecza po czasy saskie i świt oświecenia. Wrocław. Abramowicz A. 1987. Dzieje zainteresowań starożytniczych w Polsce, cz. 2: Czasy stanisławowskie i ich pokłosie. Wrocław. Anon. 1842. Rzymskie monety pod Zbojnem. Biblioteka Warszawska 3, 680. Beltz R. 1927. Der Schatzfund von Quilitz (Kreis Usedom-Wollin). Baltische Studien 29, 151–206. Bodzek J. and Madyda-Legutko R. 1997. Einige Bemerkungen über den Schatzfund von Laskowa, Woiw. Nowy Sącz. Notae Numismaticae-Zapiski Numizmatyczne 2, 108–118, [on-line] http://digi.ub.uniheidelberg.de/diglit/notae_numismaticae1997/0110. 290 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Bogucki M. 2011. The Use of Money in the Slavic Lands from the 9th to the 11th Century. The Archaeological–Numismatic Evidence. In J. Graham-Campbell, G. Williams and S. M. Sindbæk (eds.), Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia AD 800–1100, 129–148. Århus. Bogucki M. 2012. Monety starożytne, średniowieczne i nowożytne z osady w Janowie Pomorskim 1 znalezione w 2007 i 2008 roku. In M. Bogucki and B. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Janów Pomorski, stan. 1. Wyniki ratowniczych badań archeologicznych w latach 2007–2008, t. 3: Analizy (Truso Studies 1), 27–63. Elbląg. Bursche A. 1994. Die Markomannenkriege und der Zufluß römischer Münzen in das Barbaricum. In H. Friesinger, J. Tejral and A. Stuppner (eds.), Markomannenkrige. Ursachen und Wirkungen, 471–485. Brno. Bursche A. 1996. Later Roman–Barbarian Contacts in Central Europe. Numismatic Evidence. (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 11). Berlin. Ciołek R. 2001. Katalog znalezisk monet rzymskich na Pomorzu. (Światowit. Supplement Series A, Antiquity 6). Warszawa. Ciołek R. 2008. Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Polen: Schlesien. (Collection Moneta 83). Wetteren. Dutkowski J. 2010. Łup wojenny nie zna granic. In K. Filipow and B. Kuklik (eds.), Pieniądz, symbol, władza, wojna. Wspólne dziedzictwo Europy. Białoruś, Estonia, Litwa, Łotwa, Polska, Rosja, Rumunia, Słowacja, Ukraina. Studia i materiały, 98–114. Augustów. Dymowski A. 2016. Nummi serrati, bigati et alii. Coins of the Roman Republic in East-Central Europe North of the Sudetes and the Carpathians. Warszawa. Dymowski A. and Myzgin K. 2014. Inflow and Redistribution of Roman Imperial Denarii in the Area of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhiv Cultures and in the Baltic Islands in the Light of Chronological Structure of Coin Hoards. Notae Numismaticae-Zapiski Numizmatyczne 9, 39–69, [on-line] https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit. 31073.8. Gałęzowska A. 2016. Monety rzymskie w zbiorach Muzeum Archeolo-gicznego w Poznaniu. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 52, 207–254. Gliński W. and Glińska N. 2012. Początki Kielc w świetle archeologii. Renowacje i Zabytki 4, 24–31. The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 291 Gumowski M. 1956. Moneta rzymska w Polsce. Przegląd Archeologiczny 10, 91–149. Gupieniec A. 1954. Przewodnik po Dziale Numizmatycznym Muzeum Archeologicznego w Łodzi. 1 (Starożytność i wczesne średniowiecze), (Biblioteka Muzeum Archeologicznego w Łodzi 4). Łódź. Jaworski P. and Crişan D. S. 2012. “A zowie je prosty lud świętego Jana pieniądze…” Wybór źródeł do dziejów zainteresowań monetą antyczną w szesnastowiecznym Krakowie. Biuletyn Numizmatyczny 4 (368), 259–264. Kaptur K. 2010. Nowe znaleziska monet rzymskich z Wyżyny Sandomierskiej (woj. świętokrzyskie). Przyczynek do badań nad osadnictwem okresu rzymskiego w Górach Świętokrzyskich i na Wyżynie Sandomierskiej. Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego 31, 51–62. Kiersnowski R. 1958. Monety rzymskie w polskich znaleziskach wczesnośredniowiecznych. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 2, 5–14. Kokowski A. 2007. Zanim przyszli Słowianie, czyli dynamiczny obraz dziejów schyłku starożytności. In E. Banasiewicz-Szykuła (ed.), Pradzieje południowo-wschodniej Lubelszczyzny, 173–179. Lublin. Książek K. 2010. Monety z dawnego cmentarza przy kościele Salwatora we Wrocławiu: opóźniona depozycja monet w darach grobowych. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 54, 7–30. Kubiak S. 1979. Znaleziska monet rzymskich z Mazowsza i Podlasia. Wrocław. Kubiak S. 1998. Znaleziska monet z lat 1146–1500 z terenu Polski. Inwentarz (in cooperation with B. Paszkiewicz). Poznań. Kunisz A. 1969. Chronologia napływu pieniądza rzymskiego na ziemie Małopolski. Wrocław. Kunisz A. 1985. Znaleziska monet rzymskich z Małopolski. (Biblioteka Archeologiczna 30). Wrocław. Łęga W. 1930. Kultura Pomorza we wczesnym średniowieczu na podstawie wykopalisk. Tablice i mapy. Toruń. Machajewski H. and Jurkiewicz B. 2012. Osadnictwo z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego oraz późnego okresu rzymskiego i wczesnego okresu wędrówek ludów na stanowisku Janów Pomorski 1. In M. Bogucki and B. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Janów Pomorski, stan. 1. Wyniki ratowniczych badań archeologicznych w latach 2007–2008, t. 1: Od paleolitu do wczesnego okresu wędrówek ludów, (Truso Studies 1), 185–271. Elbląg. 292 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Męclewska M. and Mikołajczyk A. 1983. Skarby monet z lat 1500–1649 na obszarze PRL. Inwentarz. Warszawa. Męclewska M. and Mikołajczyk A. 1991. Skarby monet z lat 1650–1944 na obszarze Polski. Inwentarz II. Warszawa. Miechowicz Ł. 2011. By pewniej i szybciej przeniósł się na tamten świat.... Pieniądz jako element praktyk pogrzebowych na Mazowszu, Podlasiu i w Małopolsce w średniowieczu i czasach nowożytnych. In S. Cygan, M. Glinianowicz and P. Kotowicz (eds.), „In silvis, campis... et urbe”. Średniowieczny obrządek pogrzebowy na pograniczu polsko-ruskim, (Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis 14), 331–356. Rzeszów. Mielczarek M. 1989. Ancient Greek Coins Found in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe. (Bibliotheca Antiqua 21). Wrocław. Mielczarek M. 1999. Macieja z Miechowa wiedza o pieniądzu antycznym. Notae Numismaticae-Zapiski Numizmatyczne 3/4, 243–250. Mielczarek M. 2002. ‘Dux Vandalorum, Misico nomine’ and the Beginnings of Interest in Roman Coins Found in Poland. In R. Kiersnowski, S. K. Kuczyński, M. Męclewska, M. Mielczarek and B. Paszkiewicz (eds.), Moneta mediaevalis. Studia numizmatyczne i historyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Stanisławowi Suchodolskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin, 467–472. Warszawa. Mikołajczyk A. 1975. Antyczne monety w znaleziskach nowożytnych. Biuletyn Numizmatyczny 5 (103), 81–82. Mikołajczyk A. 1981. Zbiory numizmatyczne Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeolo-gicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria numizmatyczna i konserwa-torska 1, 5–67. Musiałowski A. 2010. Analiza numizmatyczna wczesnośredniowiecznych monet. In W. Chudziak (ed.), Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe w Kałdusie (stanowisko 4), (Mons Sancti Laurenti 5), 139–157. Toruń. Oelsner Ch. 1866. Hünengräber bei Gross-Strehlitz. Schlesische Provinzialblätter. Neue Folge 5, 358–361. Paszkiewicz B. 2013. Moneta w dawnym Gdańsku. Badania archeolo-giczne w latach 1997–2009. Gdańsk. Regling K. 1912. Römischer Denarfund von Fröndenberg. ZfN 29, 189– 253. Rudnicki M. 2012. Nummi Lugiorum – statery typu krakowskiego. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 56, 1–96. The common people and material relics of Antiquity... 293 Rudnicki M. and Ziąbka L. 2010. Moneta celtycka z Kalisza-Piwonic a początki dziejów mennictwa na ziemiach Polski. In S. Suchodolski and M. Zawadzki (eds.), Od Kalisii do Kalisza. Skarby Doliny Prosny. Katalog wystawy. Zamek Królewski w Warszawie, 30 kwietnia 2010 – 30 maja 2010, 13–22. Warszawa. Sadowski S. 2007. Na progu historii. Germańscy barbarzyńcy w połud-niowo-wschodniej Lubelszczyźnie. In E. Banasiewicz-Szykuła (ed.), Pradzieje południowo-wschodniej Lubelszczyzny, 133–172. Lublin. Schumann H. 1902. Pommersche Schatzfünde. Der Bronzedepotfund von Nassenheide. Der Hacksilberfund von Paatzig (Kr. Camin). Baltische Studien. Neue Folge 6, 65–94. Siwiak W. 2014. O denarach rzymskich nazywanych „pieniążkami św. Jana” (unpublished presentation at the conference: XI Między-narodowa Konferencja Numizmatyczna. Pieniądz a propaganda. Wspólne dziedzictwo Europy, Augustów 4–7 czerwca 2014). Skowronek S. 1967. Mrzygłód, pow. Sanok. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 9, 243–244. Sobczak-Jaskulska R. 1997. Kufel Jordanów dekorowany rzymskimi denarami z wykopaliska i medalami. In M. Męclewska and B. Grątkowska-Ratyńska (eds.), Pod jedną koroną. Kultura i sztuka w czasach unii polsko-saskiej, exhib. cat., 26 czerwca – 12 paździer-nika 1997, 435. Warszawa. Suchodolski S. 2012. Monety z cmentarzyska w Lubieniu, pow. piotr-kowski. In T. Kurasiński and K. Skóra (eds.), Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe w Lubieniu, pow. piotrkowski, 351–356. Łódź. Suchodolski S. 2016. Obol zmarłych (monety i pieniądz kruszcowy) na cmentarzysku w Dziekanowicach, st. 12. In J. Wrzesiński (ed.), Nummus bonum fragile est. Groby z monetami wczesnośredniowieczne-go cmentarzyska w Dziekanowicach (Biblioteka Studiów Lednickich. Seria B1, Fontes, 7:1), 157–195. Szlapińskij W. 1997. Rzadkie monety będące w posiadaniu mieszczan i szlachty lwowskiej w XVI i XVII wieku (streszczenie). In: K. Filipow (ed.), Rozwój muzealnictwa i kolekcjonerstwa numizmatycznego dawniej i dziś na Białorusi, Litwie, w Polsce i Ukrainie. Materiały z II Międzynarodowej Konferencji Numizma-tycznej, Supraśl 5–7 IX 1996, 72, Warszawa. Szuda K. 1963. Skarb denarów rzymskich z Korzkwi. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 7, 60–76. 294 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Triller E. 1991. Wykopaliska monet Karola Beyera. Wiadomości Numizma-tyczne 35, 1–104. Woźniak M. 2010. Inowrocław st. 19 – Plac klasztorny. Sprawozdanie z badań archeologicznych w roku 2010, Inowrocław (typescript in the Jan Kasprowicz Museum in Inowrocław, Department of Archaeology). Zapolska A. 2007. Denary rzymskie znajdowane w kontekstach wczesno-średniowiecznych na ziemiach polskich. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne 51, 149–178. Mateusz Bogucki c/o Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences [email protected] Arkadiusz Dymowski c/o Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University [email protected] Grzegorz Śnieżko c/o Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences [email protected] The common people and material relics of Antiquity... PLATE 1 Pl. 1: 1 – Denarius of Hadrian from Kamianka Nadbużna, source: FMP III.48 Pl. 1: 2 – Early medieval hoards from Greater Poland, Pomerania, Mazovia and Silesia by chronological period (third quarter of the 10th–fourth quarter of the 11th century) PLATE 2 M. Bogucki, A. Dymowski, G. Śnieżko Pl. 2: 1-7 – Roman denarii from 11th century burials at Dziekanowice, source: FMP I.32 The common people and material relics of Antiquity... PLATE 3 Pl. 3: 1 – Late medieval and modern hoards with ancient coins by century of their deposition Pl. 3: 2 – Denarius of Trajan, struck AD 98–111, Rome mint. Photograph by courtesy of the Jan Kasprowicz Museum in Inowrocław, edited by G. Śnieżko Pl. 3: 3 – Follis of Constans from NMP Square in Kielce, source: Gliński and Glińska 2012, 27 Pl. 3: 4 – Cententionalis of Constantius II from NMP Square in Kielce, source: Gliński and Glińska 2012, 27 Editorial Note Since volume 14 of the Studies in Ancient Art And Civilization, published in 2010, the design of our periodical has slightly changed, and we also started to use the so-called Harvard referencing (or parenthetical) system, all due to the fact that SAAC was listed in the reference index of reviewed journals of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (List B). Since 2010 (vol. 14) the publisher has been Księgarnia Akademicka Ltd. in Krakow. Starting with volume 16 (2012) an external review procedure has been introduced, compliant with the double-blind review process (anonymity of both the reviewed author and the reviewer). The referees include both members of the Editorial Board and others. The list of referees is published on the journal’s website and in the hard copy. The primary version of the journal is the electronic format. As far as the names of the towns in Poland are concerned, these are given in their original form (e.g. Poznań, Gołuchów etc.), with the exception of the well established English ones such as Warsaw and Krakow (but in the title pages the original name Kraków is used). With the 2011 issue we also introduced the following abbreviations, apart from those used in the American Journal of Archaeology and Lexikon der Ägyptologie: PAM – Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, Warsaw RechACrac SN – Recherches Archéologiques. Serie Nouvelle, Krakow SAAC – Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization, Krakow Guidelines for prospective authors can be found on our webpages: http://www.saac.archeo.uj.edu.pl/ http://www.akademicka.pl/saac/ SAAC volumes nos. 1-21 are available on the library exchange base. Recent issues starting from vol. 14 (2010) can be purchased from the Księgarnia Akademicka, also in e-book format http://www.akademicka.pl/saac/ Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization was created in 1991 by Professor Joachim Śliwa as an occasional series and since vol. 10 (2007) has become a regular annual journal edited by the Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology. Księgarnia Akademicka S. A. has been the publisher since 2011. Nineteen volumes have been published to date, among them two monographs, two conference proceedings and three festschrifts for distinguished researchers from our Institute. SAAC publishes papers in the fields of the archaeology, art and civilization of ancient Egypt, the Near East, Greece and its colonies, Cyprus and Rome, as well as other, non-Mediterranean ancient civilizations; also in the history of archaeology, antiquities collecting and the reception of ancient culture in modern Europe. Special attention is given to topics concerning predynastic and early-dynastic Egypt, the Greek and Roman periods in the Black Sea region, and the archaeology of Cyprus, thanks to excavations conducted by researchers from our Institute in these areas. Material from these excavations is published in SAAC. http://www.archeo.uj.edu.pl/saac/ http://www.akademicka.pl/saac/ Current and previous volumes of SAAC are available from the official distributor: www.archeobooks.com ISSN 1899-1548